YATINDRA SINGH, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Tilak Ram Mandavi – Appellant
Versus
State of CG – Respondent
1. This two groups of writ petitions challenge different provisions of Chhattisgarh Tribal and Scheduled Caste Development Department Educational Cadre (Gazetted), Service Recruitment Rules, 2011 (the 2011Rules) and are opposite to each other in the sense that if one is to be allowed the other is to be dismissed:
The first group namely WP(S)-1407, and 2241 of 2012 (serial-1 and 2) is by directly recruited Lecturers and they substantially challenged the equivalence granted to Headmasters, Middle School with the Lecturers;
The second group of writ petitions namely WP(S)-2349, 2674, 2675, 2676, 3150 of 2012 and WP(S)-1449 of 2013 (serial-3 to 8) is by Lecturers, who are promoted from the post of Head Masters, Middle School for not including the period of their service as Head Master, Middle School for calculating the period of their qualifying service as has been in the case of those Head Masters middle school who continue to hold such post.
THE FACTS Historical ? The Earlier Rules
2. Initially, in the State, the school teachers (upto class XII) were under the following categories:
(i) Assistant Teachers upto class-V;
(ii) Head Master, Primary School (upto class V);
(iii) Upper
Budhan v. State of Bihar (1995) 1 SCR 1045: AIR 1955 SC 191
State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali 1952 SCR 284 : AIR 1952 SC 75
Vajravelu v. Sp. Dy. Collector
Budhan v. State of Bihar (1995) 1 SCR 1045: AIR 1955 SC 191
State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali 1952 SCR 284 : AIR 1952 SC 75
Vajravelu v. Sp. Dy. Collector
Venkateshwara Theatre vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others-(1993) 3 SCC 677
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.