Chattisgarh High Court
Jainarayan Chandra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 March, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:12940-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 36 of 2025
Jainarayan Chandra Aged About 72 Years S/o Late Bhanu Pratap Chandra
Retired Deputy Director (Prosecution) Korba, District Korba (Chhattisgarh),
Present Address- Ward No. 5, Village And Post Jhalrouda, District- Sakti
(Chhattisgarh)
... Appellant
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Home And
Police, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Present Address- Nava Raipur,
Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Director (Prosecution) Chhattisgarh, H.Q., Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur Through It's Secretary,
Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 / : Mr. Y.S.Thakur, Additional Advocate
State General
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
18/03/2025
1. Heard Mr. Vikas Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner
as well as Mr. Y.S.Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the
State/respondents No. 1 and 2.
2. Today, the matter is listed for hearing on IA No. 1, which is an application
for condonation of delay of 355 days. However, with the consent of
learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is being heard
finally.
3. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the
learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2962/2010 whereby the writ petition
filed by the appellant seeking quashing of the order dated 07.06.2010
(Annexure P/13) and to grant promotional benefits on the post of Deputy
Director (Prosecution) w.e.f 25.08.2025 with all consequential benefits,
have been dismissed.
4. The facts, in brief, as projected by the appellant/writ petitioner are that
the appellant was working on the post of District Prosecution Officer. As
per the service Rules, 100% post of Deputy Director, Prosecution is to be
filled up by promotion from the post of District Prosecution Officer. The
promotion criteria is seniority-cum-fitness. In year 2005 a Departmental
Promotion Committee meeting was convened. The name of appellant
was also considered and he was found fit for promotion. 16 posts of
Deputy Director was vacant wherein 11 posts were under the unreserved
category. Despite availability of the 11 vacant post in unreserved
category, only 9 were filled up in first promotion order and further one
post filled up. The petitioner was the eleventh candidate for promotion in
unreserved category but the respondents did not grant promotion stating
inter alia that no post was vacant. Being aggrieved, the appellant
preferred WPS No. 478/2010 wherein the learned Single Judge directed
the respondents to consider the representation of the appellant. Pursuant
thereto, the appellant made a representation which was decided/rejected
by respondent No. 1 on 07.06.2010 and as such, the petitioner filed
another writ petition being WPS No. 2962/2010 challenging the rejection
of his representation vide order dated 07.06.2010 passed by respondent
No. 2. The appellant is basically aggrieved by non granting promotion on
the post of Deputy Director, Prosecution w.e.f 25.08.2005 even though,
as per the appellant, he was considered fit for promotion by the DPC.
5. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ
petition vide order dated 29.11.2023 which is sought to be challenged in
this appeal.
6. Mr. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner
submits that the learned Single Judge has committed grave error which
goes into the root of matter because submission raised by the appellant
with regard to preparation of incorrect roster (Annexure R/4) has not
been considered or dealt with and further the learned Single judge has
recorded a finding contrary to the record and without giving any clinching
finding with regard to roster. The appellant had neither pleaded that his
claim was on the basis that the junior were granted promotion nor made
a submission that he was not considered in the DPC dated 25.08.2005
whereas on the contrary, in the said DPC he was found fit for promotion
but could not be promoted for want of clear vacant post due to incorrect
preparation of roster. If correct roster would have been prepared the
appellant would have been granted promotion in the said DPC of year
2005 only. The appellant was possessing requisite eligibility also
considered by DPC and found fit for promotion therefore while issuance
of promotion order on 25.08.2005 the respondent No. 1 ought to have
granted promotion to the appellant. The representation of the appellant
was rejected on 06.06.2010 summarily without assigning any reason
which is a non-speaking order and therefore, the same is illegal. Once
there was a clear vacancy and the appellant was found fit for promotion
therefore denial of promotion to him is illegal and clear violation of his
fundamental rights as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. The appellant is entitled to get promotion on the
post of Deputy Director Prosecution w.e.f 25.08.2005 and consequential
benefits from which the similar situated persons were granted promotion
from same DPC. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the
Supreme Court in S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic
Mission, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 464. It is lastly submitted that the
appellant had also filed a review petition which was also dismissed by the
learned Single Judge vide order dated 08.01.2024. Hence, this appeal.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Y.S.Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2, placing reliance on the
return filed before the learned Single Judge, submits that the order
passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper and warrants no
interference.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings
and documents appended thereto.
9. As per the appellant/writ petitioner, the DPC meeting was held on
25.08.2005 in which his name could not find place though he was claims
to be eligible to be promoted on the said date. Thereafter, he filed the first
writ petition being WPS No. 478/2010 on 29.01.2010 i.e. after about 1
year and 5 months. Pursuant to the order dated 02.01.2010 passed in
the said petition, the representation preferred by the appellant got
rejected vide order dated 07.06.2010 by the respondent No. 2. The said
order was again challenged in WPS No. 2962/2010 which was filed on
23.06.2010. The said petition has also been dismissed by the learned
Single Judge and a review petition being preferred against the same has
also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 08.01.2024. After
passing of the said order, the writ petitioner/appellant has preferred the
present appeal after a lapse of about one year from the date of passing
of the order dated 29.11.2023 and no cogent reasons have been
assigned for such an inordinate delay.
10. The respondents, by way of their return filed before the learned Single
Judge, has explained that in the year 2005, there were total 17 posts of
Deputy Director, Prosecution and out of the said 17 posts, 11 were
under the unreserved category. In the year 2005, 9 posts remained for
promotion under the unreserved category and vide order dated
25.08.2005, total 9 unreserved category candidates were promoted,
whereas, out of total 11 posts under the unreserved category, two
persons were already promoted as per the roster after bifurcation of the
State as they were working in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh.
The gradation list published in the year 2003 was revised in the year
2008 and thereafter a correct gradation list was published, consequently
the name of the appellant was placed at Sr. No.12 in place of Sr. No.13,
though in the year 2005, total 7 officers were to be promoted in the
unreserved category and 2 officers in the unreserved category were to be
regularized, in such manner total 9 officers were promoted. According to
correct gradation list in the year 2008, the promotion of unreserved
category had been fulfilled up to Sr. No.10 and had one vacant post been
reserved, then also another candidate namely Shri S.P. Sharma, who
was placed at Sr. No.11, would have got promoted in place of the
appellant because the name of the appellant was at Sr. No.12. In such a
situation, the appellant did not suffered any loss. As per incorrect
gradation list issued in the year 2003, Shri S.P. Sharma who was placed
at Sr. No.11 in the said gradation list was promoted, but the officer who
was placed at Sr. No. 12 (at Sr. No.10 in the amended gradation list) did
not challenge the same. The appellant also did not challenge the same.
The writ petition was filed in the year 2010, therefore, there was a long
delay of more than 7 years and the appellant could not explain that delay
and deliberately challenged the order dated 07.06.2010 to show that
there was no delay in filing the writ petition.
11. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the aforesaid facts in
paragraph 6 and 7 of its order which goes to suggest that in fact the writ
petitioner/ appellant could not be promoted on the date as claimed by
him. Annexure R/5 is the order dated 10.05.2010 passed by the
respondents whereby the objection/claim of the appellant has been
considered and a detailed order has been passed assigning reasons for
rejection of his claim. Since there was no post available as on the date of
conducting of the DPC, the appellant has rightly not been considered,
The appellant has failed to make out any case warranting interference
with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and as such, this
petition being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Amit
AMIT
KUMAR
DUBEY
