High CourtsSingle Bench(2025) 09 CHH CK 0455

Pawan Singh Kanwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 16 September 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
WPS No. 10414 Of 2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 331 words

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J

1.

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition (s) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 30-5-2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the private respondent No.8 who is junior to the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Lecturer whereas the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Lecturer vide order dated 29-9-2018 which is illegal and contrary to the rules.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher by order dated 27-12-1986 and thereafter he was promoted on the  post of Upper Division Teacher  by order dated 7-10-2008.  He would further submit that the private respondent No.8 was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher by order dated 9-1-1991 and thereafter the petitioner was promoted on the post of Upper Division Teacher by order dated 13-10-2008 as per seniority list dated 1-4-2014 showing the petitioner’s name at Serial No.882 whereas the respondent No.8 is showing at serial No. 1728. Thereafter suddenly respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order dated 30-5-2017 in which the private respondent No.8 has got promotion on the post of Lecturer by ignoring and depriving the name of the petitioner for promotion which is illegal.

3.

This petition has been filed after  lapse of eight years  from the date of promotion of respondent No.8 ie., on 30-5-2017. As such, this petition is hopelessly barred by limitation. Therefore, I am of the view that at this juncture, the petition is not maintainable, the same is liable to be dismissed in view of well settled position of law that the petitioner for claiming promotion should approach the Court expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months whereas the present petition has been filed after lapse of more than eight years. Therefore, I am of the view of that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.