SMT. ARTI GUPTA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1
WPS No.7038 of 2026

CGHC010374732026 2026:CGHC:45674
NAFR
SOURABH
BHILWAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
SOURABH BHILWAR
Date: 2026.10.29
14:33:54 +0530
(Order Reserved on 27-10-2026)
(Final Order Delivered on 29-10-2026)
(Final Order Uploaded on 29-10-2026)
WPS No. 7038 of 2026
Smt. Arti Gupta W/o Heera Lal Gupta Aged About 37 Years Presently Working
As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School, Station Para Ghutku,
Block Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of School
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
2 - Director Directorate of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar
Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
4 - District Education Officer Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
5 - Block Education Officer Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate
For State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer

2
WPS No.7038 of 2026
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru)
CAV Order
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the action
of the respondents in not including her name in the final gradation list
as on 01.04.2026 prepared for the post of Assistant Teacher/Assistant
Teacher (L.B.). The petitioner has also sought a direction to the
respondents to place her name at the appropriate place in the said
gradation list and thereafter consider her candidature for promotion, if
she falls within the zone of consideration.
2. The case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, is that she
was initially appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Varg-III on
30.09.2008 and her services were subsequently absorbed in the School
Education Department on 01.07.2018. It is contended that, despite her
continuous service, her name has not been included in the final
gradation list prepared as on 01.04.2026. According to the petitioner,
respondent No. 5, namely, the Block Education Officer, Takhatpur,
District Bilaspur, had recommended inclusion of her name in the
provisional gradation list, yet the competent authority failed to
incorporate her name in the final list. The petitioner alleges that such
omission is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of her rights under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has rendered continuous service since her initial appointment and that

3
WPS No.7038 of 2026
the omission of her name from the gradation list would adversely affect
her seniority and future promotional prospects. It is contended that
once the concerned Block Education Officer had recommended
inclusion of her name, the respondents were required to consider the
said recommendation while finalising the gradation list. It is further
submitted that the petitioner cannot be deprived of her legitimate claim
merely on account of her subsequent transfer from District Surguja to
District Bilaspur, particularly when, according to her, the transfer was
on administrative grounds. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the
respondents be directed to include the petitioner's name at the
appropriate place in the gradation list and consider her case for
promotion in ac cordance with the applicable service rules.
4. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 25.09.2026, this
Court directed respondent No. 4, the District Education Officer,
Bilaspur, to file an affidavit explaining why the name of the petitioner
had not been included in the gradation list despite the recommendation
made by the concerned Block Education Officer.
5. In compliance with the said direction, an affidavit has been filed by the
District Education Officer, Bilaspur.. In the said affidavit it is pleaded
that the petitioner was not borne on the est ablishment of District
Bilaspur on the said date and, therefore, her name was not included in
the gradation list pertaining to that establishment. The subsequent
recommendation made by the Block Education Officer in respect of

4
WPS No.7038 of 2026
inclusion of the name of the petitioner was forwarded to the Directorate
of Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, for appropriate guidance and after
receipt of such guidance appropriate decision will be taken.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record, including the affidavit filed in compliance with the
order dated 25.09.2026.
7. From the affidavit filed by the District Education Officer, Bilaspur, it
appears that the petitioner was transferred from District Surguja to
District Bilaspur by order dated 06.08.2026 and tendered her joining on
11.08.2026. Thereafter, she was posted at Government Primary School,
Station Para Chutku, Block Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, by order dated
21.08.2026, and joined at the said place on 24.08.2026. Thus, the
petitioner's transfer and joining in District Bilaspur took place after the
date with reference to which the gradation list in question was
prepared.
8. The aforesaid chronology is material for deciding the controversy. The
gradation list under challenge pertains to the position as on 01.04.2026,
whereas the petitioner's transfer to and joining in District Bilaspur took
place in August 2026. In the absence of any material establishing that
the applicable service rules required the petitioner's name to be
included in the gradation list of District Bilaspur notwithstanding the
aforesaid position, the mere fact of her subsequent transfer would not,
by itself, establish that the respondents were under a legal obligation to

5
WPS No.7038 of 2026
include her name in the list with effect from the earlier date.
9. The recommendation made by respondent No. 5 is required to be
considered by the competent authority in accordance with the
applicable service rules and the relevant facts and according to the
DEO, Bilaspur, the matter has already been referred to the DPI for
necessary action. In the affidavit the DEO categorically stated that
upon receipt of guidance from the DPI appropriate steps will be taken
in respect of the grievance of the petitioner.
10. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondent authorities to take appropriate steps and pass a reasoned
decision on the claim of the petitioner, in accordance with law. The
entire exercise shall be completed within an outer limit of 45 days from
today. Thereafter, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise her grievance
before the appropriate forum as may be available to her under the law,
if the cause of action still survives.
Sd/- SD/-
( Bibhu Datta Guru )
JUDGE
Ashu/
$. Bhilwar