RAM NIWAS SAHU (PETITIONER IN PERSION) vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010390952023 2026:CGHC:45292-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 505 of 2023
Ram Niwas Sahu (Petitioner In Persion) S/o Ganpat Ram Sahu Aged About 40
Years Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. TWD Middle School Shivpur, B.E.O.
Ramanuj Nagar, Surajpur Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Secretary Of Aadim Jati And Anushuchit Jati Vikash Vibhag Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Post
Office And Police Station Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
4 - Joint Director (Treasury Accounts And Pension) Sarguja Division, District Surguja
Chhattisgarh
5 - District Education Officer Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh
6 - Block Education Officer Ramanujnager, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Appellant : Appellant Ram Niwas Sahu appears in person
For Respondents/State : Mr. Prasoon Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General
Hon’ble Mr. Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Santosh Sharma, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per : Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice

27/10/2026
1. The appellant in this intra-court appeal seeks to assail Order dated
Digitally
signed by
BINI
PRADEEP
Date:
2026.10.28
10:53:20
+0530
BINI
PRADEEP

2
22.08.2023 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the learned Single Judge in
WPS No.5200/2020.
2. By virtue of the impugned order, the writ petition filed by the appellant/
petitioner was dismissed. The appellant, who appears in person,
submits that he was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II
vide Order dated 29.05.2009. He further submits that pursuant to an
advertisement published, the appellant applied for the post of Shiksha
Karmi Grade-II and Grade-III and at that point of time, he had not
obtained the degree of B.Ed/D.Ed. The examinations for both the
posts were held on 06.04.2008 and the appellant/petitioner was
selected as Shiksha Karma Grade-III by Janpad Panchayat
Ramanujnagar in the district of Surguja on 01.10.2008. The appellant
obtained B.Ed. Decree from Guru Ghashi Das University on
21.05.2008 as a regular student. Firstly, the appellant was appointed to
the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and subsequently he was selected
for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II and was appointed as such on
29.05.2009. The appointment was made in terms of the provisions of
the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shikshakarmi (Bharti and Sewa Sharten)
Niyam, 2007 (for brevity ‘the Rules, 2007’). Later on, the services of
the appellant was absorbed in the School Education Department vide
Order dated 14.09.2018 in pursuance of the policy decision of the
Government dated 30.06.2018. As the appellant was not granted two
advance increments, though he was discharging the same duty as
other teachers, who were granted such benefit and had acquired B.Ed.
Degree prior to joining their post, the appellant filed WPS
No.5200/2020 seeking following relief (s):-
10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call

3
the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner from the
respondents.
10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to be
set aside the impugned order dated 07.09.2020 passed by the
respondent No.3 being illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and
discriminatory manner.
10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and
just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including cost
of the petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.
3. It is submitted by the appellant that the inaction on the part of the
authority in not extending the benefit of two advance increments was
illegal and arbitrary and the appellant was intentionally downgraded in
his rank although untrained candidates were placed above him in the
select list. As the appellant, at the time of his appointment was not
having the B.Ed. qualification and obtained it subsequently at his own
expenses, he is entitled to two increments. The learned Single Judge,
without considering the same, dismissed the writ petition on the ground
that the writ petition was hopelessly barred by limitation as it was filed
11 years after the cause of action arose. It is also submitted that the
learned Single Judge most illegally held that there was no
provision/rule for granting two advance increments under Rules 2007.
It is thus, submitted that the impugned order under Annexure-A/1 is not
sustainable and is liable to be set aside. The appellant has also made
elaborate submissions stating that though under the Rules 2007, the
qualification of B.Ed/BTC/D.Ed. was made mandatory for appointment
to the post of Shikha Karmi Grade-II, but he has filed documents which
would reveal that even after the Rules 2007 came into force, teachers
were appointed without having requisite qualifications. Hence, the
case of the appellant/petitioner should have been considered in its

4
proper perspective and the learned Single Judge should have
extended the benefit of two increments to the appellant.
4. Mr. Prasoon Bhaduri, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State,
refuting the submissions made by the appellant in person, contends
that the appellant was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II on
29.05.2009. By then, he was holding B.Ed. Degree qualification. There
is no provision under the Rules 2007 to grant two advance increments
as prayed for by the appellant. Referring to Annexure P/15 of the writ
petition, Mr. Bhaduri, learned Dy. Advocate General submits that the
policy decision of granting two advance increments to the candidates
was discontinued vide a subsequent policy decision taken by the State
Government on 07.03.2020 (Annexure-P/15). Although the said
document has been annexed with the writ petition, but was not
challenged by the appellant. Thus, said policy decision is binding on
the appellant. He further submits that the practice of granting two
advance increments was discontinued since 16.06.1993 when the
qualification of B.Ed./BTC/D.Ed. Degree was made mandatory for
appointment to the post of the Shiksha Karmi Grade-II. In cases,
where the candidates having requisite qualification were not available,
by relaxing the requisite qualification, certain appointments were being
made. But that does not give a right to the appellant to claim the
benefit. The learned Single Judge has vividly discussed the rival
contentions of the parties as well as the relevant rules in the impugned
order before arriving at the conclusion. It is also submitted that the
reason behind fixing the cut of date of 16.06.1993 was that on and
from that date, B.Ed/BTC/D.Ed. degree qualification was made
mandatory for appointment for the post of teachers. Admittedly, the

5
appellant was appointed to the post of Shikha Karmi Grade-II in 2009,
under the provisions of Rules, 2007. As such, he was not entitled to
the benefit of two advance increments. Prior to 16.06.1993, two
advance increments were being granted to the candidates having
B.Ed/BTC/D.Ed. Degree qualification, as such eligibility was not
mandatory and to incentivize the candidates to acquire that
qualification, such increment was being given. The appellant at the
time of his appointment had never raised any objection nor raised it
subsequently. Thus, the writ appeal merits no consideration and is
liable to be dismissed.
5. Taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties
and perusal of the record, it appears that the appellant was appointed
in terms of to the provisions under Rules 2007, in which
B.Ed/BTC/D.Ed. Degree qualification was made mandatory for
appointment to the post of the Shiksha Karmi Grade-II. The appellant
was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II on 29.05.2009 and he joined
on the said post without any objection and continued to discharge his
duty. The Rules 2007 does not prescribe any provision for
advancing/granting two advance increments to the candidates who
have obtained B.Ed/BTC/D.Ed. Degree qualification. The said
practice was discontinued since 16.06.1993 i.e. from the date when
B.Ed/BTC/D.Ed. Degree qualification was made mandatory for
appointment to the post of teachers. By virtue of the policy decision
dated 07.03.2020 (Annexure-P/15 to the writ petition), earlier policy
decision of granting two advance increments was superseded. The
said notification though annexed with the writ petition, the appellant did
not challenge in the writ petition. As such, the same is binding on the

6
appellant, which mandates that no further increments shall be granted
to the candidates who have obtained B.Ed. Degree qualification, as
that of the appellant.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties patiently and perused
materials on record both in the writ appeal as well as in the writ
petition. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the record, more particularly, after going through the impugned order at
Annexure-A/1, we find no infirmity in it.
7. In view of the above, the writ appeal being devoid of any merit, stands
dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Santosh Sharma) (Krushna Ram Mohapatra)
Judge Chief Justice
Bini