[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Amit Ghosh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2026
1
Digitally
RAGHVENDRA signed by
2026:CGHC:9868
JAT RAGHVENDRA
JAT
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 9606 of 2023
1 - Amit Ghosh S/o Late Shri S.N. Ghosh Aged About 56 Years
Presently Posted As Assistant Statistical Officer (Original) Post Lecturer
(Mathematics) In The Office Of The District Education Officer Durg, R/o
Aadharsh Nagar, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of School
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
(C.G.).
2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Mantralaya Indravati
Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).
3 - Commissioner Directorate Of Public Instruction, Mantralaya Indravati
Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).
4 - District Education Officer, Durg District Durg (C.G.).
5 - District Education Officer Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.).
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
25/02/2026
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call
for entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quashed the impugned order 11.10.2023 (Annexure P-1)
passed by the respondent no. 1.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondents authorities to consider the petitioner
for grant of promotion to him for the post of Principal w.e.f.
28/05/2016 with all consequential service benefits with
fixation of inter seniority in the post of Principal.
10.4 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper may also be passed in favor of the
petitioner together with cost of the petition."
2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was initially appointed
as Upper Division Teacher (UDT) Mathematics by order dated
25.11.1986, however, despite his juniors having been promoted to
the post of Lecturer with effect from 17.08.1998, he was denied
such promotion. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P. No.
5490/2005, and during the pendency of the said writ petition, he
was granted promotion to the post of Lecturer with effect from
31.07.2006, thereafter, by order dated 08.03.2010, he was again
granted promotion to the post of Lecturer with effect from
13.12.1999 in place of 17.08.1998. Subsequently, W.P. No.
5490/2005 was disposed of by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated
27.09.2013 with a direction that, if the petitioner filed a fresh
representation within one month, the same be considered on its
own merits expeditiously. In compliance with the said order
passed in W.P. No. 5490/2005 (Amit Ghosh vs. State of
Chhattisgarh), the petitioner was ultimately granted promotion to
the post of Lecturer (Mathematics) with effect from 17.08.1998 by
order dated 23.11.2021, and corresponding seniority was also
accorded. It is pertinent to mention that between the disposal of
the writ petition on 27.09.2013 and the issuance of the order
dated 23.11.2021, the petitioner's juniors were promoted to the
post of Principal by order dated 25-28.05.2016. Thereafter, upon
issuance of the order dated 23.11.2021, the petitioner submitted a
representation dated 01.12.2021 to respondent No. 3 seeking
promotion to the post of Principal with effect from 28.05.2016
along with fixation of inter se seniority. The said representation
was forwarded by the District Education Officer on 15.12.2021,
and a repeated representation dated 19.01.2022 was again
forwarded on 08.02.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.(S)
No. 1668/2022, which was disposed of vide order dated
15.03.2022 with a direction to consider his representation within
90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
However, despite receipt of the said order, no action was taken by
the respondent authorities, compelling the petitioner to file
Contempt Case (C) No. 706/2022, and during the pendency
thereof, respondent No. 1, by order dated 11.10.2023, decided the
representation and arbitrarily rejected the same.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the impugned order
suffers from manifest arbitrariness and is liable to be set aside, as
the stigmatic observations contained therein are based purely on
presumptions and surmises without any supporting material on
record, and even a bare perusal of the impugned order reveals
that the respondents themselves have no information regarding
any departmental enquiry or adverse remark against the
petitioner, yet they have unjustifiably assumed the existence of
such adverse material to explain the delayed promotion of the
petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has throughout
maintained an unblemished service record with no adverse
entries in his ACRs, and had there been any adverse remark, the
same would necessarily has been reflected in his service records
and communicated to him after granting due opportunity, whereas
the passing of such stigmatic remarks has unfairly cast a shadow
on his honest and hardworking careers. Learned counsel further
submits that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for any
procedural irregularity committed by the respondent State in not
convening a review DPC or in correcting their seniority belatedly,
as it was the statutory obligation of the authorities to determine
seniority strictly in accordance with law upon consideration of the
representations made by the petitioner, and any defect in the
order granting seniority is attributable solely to the respondents. It
is also contended that even assuming, without admitting, that the
correction of seniority was not in accordance with law, the
respondents ought to have taken appropriate steps to conduct a
review DPC expeditiously instead of passing the impugned
stigmatic order and thereafter remaining silent while merely
altering the date of promotion for the purpose of seniority. In view
of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel submits
that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the petition
filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed in the interest of
justice.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the present writ
petition is liable to be dismissed. She further submits that before
entering into the merits of the present controversy, it is essential
to advert to the statutory framework governing the field, namely
Rule 12(1)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, which unequivocally regulates
the determination of seniority, particularly in respect of promotees
vis-à-vis direct recruits. It is contended that Rule 12(1)
comprehensively codifies the principles for fixation of seniority so
as to obviate any dispute inter se employees, and clause (b)
thereof specifically mandates that where promotions are effected
on the basis of selection by a Departmental Promotion Committee
(DPC), the seniority of such promotees shall strictly follow the
order in which their names are recommended by the DPC. Thus,
the recommendation of the DPC constitutes the determinative and
foundational criterion for assigning seniority to promoted officers,
leaving no scope for deviation on extraneous considerations.
Learned counsel emphasizes that the statutory scheme is explicit,
unambiguous, and binding, and the department is under a legal
obligation to adhere scrupulously to the order of recommendation
made by the DPC while fixing seniority. The Rules, having been
framed to ensure uniformity, transparency, and avoidance of
conflict in service matters, must be enforced in their letter and
spirit. In view of the clear mandate of Rule 12(1)(b), any claim
contrary to the order of recommendation of the DPC is
unsustainable in law, as the seniority of promotees is required to
be determined solely and strictly in accordance with the select list
prepared by the competent Departmental Promotion Committee.
5. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
record, this Court finds that the controversy in the present petition
essentially relates to withdrawal/revision of long-settled seniority.
Admittedly, the seniority of the petitioner had remained in
operation for several years, was reflected in gradation lists. The
impugned order has the effect of unsettling the entire service
position of the petitioner after a long lapse of time.
7. Even if the respondents were of the view that the earlier fixation of
seniority was not in accordance with the rules, such settled
seniority could not have been disturbed in a mechanical manner
by passing a paper order without undertaking a proper exercise in
accordance with law. Any action having civil consequences,
particularly one affecting seniority and promotion, is required to be
preceded by a fair procedure, objective consideration of service
records, and, wherever necessary, a duly constituted review
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). The impugned order
does not disclose any such comprehensive exercise and appear
to be founded only on a notional/paper reassessment of seniority.
8. This Court is of the considered opinion that correction of seniority
and consequential refixation of promotion, if at all required, must
be undertaken only through a lawful review DPC after examining
the relevant ACRs/service records and after granting due
opportunity to the affected employees. A mere administrative
rejection of seniority, without such exercise, cannot be sustained.
9. Consequently, the impugned order dated 11.10.2023 is quashed.
The matter is remitted to the competent authority with a direction
to reconsider the seniority and promotional claims of the petitioner
by convening a review DPC, if so required, strictly in accordance
with the applicable rules and procedure. While doing so, the
authority shall examine the case of the petitioner vis-à-vis his
juniors and determine whether the petitioner was entitled to
promotion on the date claimed by him. If in the review DPC it is
found that the petitioner was eligible and entitled to promotion on
the relevant dates, he shall be granted notional promotion and
consequential service benefits in accordance with law.
10. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a reasonable
period, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
No order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Raghu Jat
