RAM JEEVAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his name for appointment on the vacant post of Lecturer, as per the advertisement dated 1.1.2009 and further issue order pursuant to the result and counseling made thereof, within stipulated period.

(2.) Shri Dembra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working in 100% Government Aided School namely Lahidi Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Chirmiri. An advertisement was issued on 1.1.2009 by the respondent No. 1, inviting applications for the appointment by way of promotion, on the post of Lecturer. The petitioner, after obtaining due permission, appeared in the examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (for short 'the CGVYAPAM'), held on 25.10.2009 in which the petitioner was declared successful and he was called for counseling also on 23.11.2010, however, till date, no promotion order has been issued to the petitioner, despite the fact that several posts of Lecturers are still lying vacant.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that even if the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination, which was admittedly conducted by the CGVYAPAM, the petitioner does not acquire any right to be promoted, as the permission to appear in the examination itself was a mistake. In Clause (2) of the advertisement, it is clearly stated that the Assistant Teachers/Teachers of the School Education Department only, are entitled to appear in the examination for promotion to the post of Lecturer. The petitioner is not an employee of the School Education Department, but is an employee of a private 100% Government Aided School. Even though, the petitioner may be getting all the pay and perks as granted to the Teachers/Assistant Teachers of the School Education Department, but the petitioner still remains the employee of the private school. Thus, this petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.