... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Director Directorate Chhattisgarh Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

3 - District Education Officer Baster, District Jagdalpur (C.G.)

4 - Joint Director (Education) Division Baster, District Jagdalpur (C.G.)

... Respondents

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioners :- Mr. Goutam Khetarpal, Advocate

For State :- Mr. Arpit Agrawal, P.L.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

19.03.2026

1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking following reliefs:-

“10.1 "That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for promotion on the post of Teacher (L.B.) with all other consequential monetary benefits including seniority from the date of promotion order dated 07.02.2022 of the identically placed Teacher.”

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition stands squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 2824 of 2023 (Maneesh Kumar Nayak and others vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 11.12.2025. It is jointly prayed that the present writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the observations and findings recorded therein. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:–

“6. The facts are largely undisputed. The petitioners were absorbed in the School Education Department under the policy decision dated 30.06.2018, which mandated completion of eight years of service as a condition for absorption. The petitioners accepted such absorption without raising any objection, and their absorption orders have long since attained finality. The present grievance arises only after issuance of the subsequent policy dated 23.07.2020, which introduced absorption upon completion of two years of service for a fresh class of employees.

7. The issue raised herein is no longer res integra. An identical controversy has already been adjudicated by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1389 of 2021, decided on 28.11.2025, wherein this Court upheld the validity of the policy dated 23.07.2020 and rejected the claim of teachers absorbed under the 2018 policy seeking notional absorption, seniority, or monetary benefits from an earlier date. This Court, in the said decision, has categorically held that the 2020 policy is a prospective executive decision which neither divests nor curtails any rights of employees absorbed earlier under the 2018 policy. It was further held that once an employee voluntarily accepts absorption under a particular policy, he cannot thereafter approbate and reprobate by claiming more favourable treatment under a subsequent policy. The doctrine of estoppel squarely applies in such circumstances.

8. Applying the same principles to the present case, it is evident that the petitioners’ plea for absorption from the date they completed two years of service is wholly misconceived. The petitioners cannot seek reopening of settled service conditions or challenge the consequences of a policy under which they voluntarily accepted absorption. The prayer seeking notional absorption, re-fixation of seniority, and consequential arrears is contrary to the 2018 Rules as well as the explicit terms of the absorption order dated 30.06.2018, particularly Clause IV, which mandates that all service benefits shall be computed only from the date of absorption. It is also significant that the petitioners have not challenged Clause IV of the 2018 order, nor the absorption