[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Jitendra Kumar Meshram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:13544
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 9096 of 2022
Jitendra Kumar Meshram S/o Pyarelal Meshram Aged About 57
Years Working As Executive Engineer (Civil) And Posted At
Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Vikas Abhikaran Kawardha, District
Kawardha (C.G.)
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of
Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
WITH
WPS No. 117 of 2023
Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap S/o Late Shri Atma Ram Kashyap
Aged About 61 Years Working As - Executive Engineer, At -
Chhattisgarh Gramin Sadak Vikas Abhikaan, Piu No. 01,
Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. The Engineer In Chief, Department Of Rural Engineering
Services, H.Q. Vikas Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur
Chhattisgarh
3. The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its
Secretary, H.Q. Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
4. Mr. Avinash Kumar Singh S/o Shri Vanshbahadur Singh Aged
About 58 Years Working As- Assistant Engineer, At Circle Office
Of The Superintendent Engineer Department Of Rural
Engineering Services, Raipur. H.Q.- Collectorate Campus,
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
For Petitioners : Mr. Shashi Kushwaha and Mr. G.P. Mathur,
Advocates (in WPS/9096/2022)
Mr. Juhi Anguriya, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
R.K. Kesharwani, Advocate(in WPS/117/2023)
For State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, G.A.
For CGPSC : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate (in
WPS/117/2023)
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order On Board
20.3.2026
1) Petitioners, namely, Jitendra Kumar Meshram and Gyandendra
Kumar Kashyap filed these petitions assailing the order passed
by Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development,
State of Chhattisgarh dated 2.12.2022, whereby they have been
reverted to the post of Sub-Engineer from Executive Engineer.
2) Facts of present cases are that initially petitioners were appointed
against sanctioned and vacant posts of Sub Engineer under
Panchayat and Rural Development Department in the year 1983-
84. Subsequently, Jitendra Kumar Meshram was promoted to the
post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on 25.2.2016 and he was further
promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) on 19.8.2021.
Likewise, Gyandendra Kumar Kashyap was promoted to the post
of Assistant Engineer on 31.12.2012 and he was further promoted
to the post of Executive Engineer on 19.8.2021. Respondent No.
1 vide order dated 2.12.2022 reverted the petitioners to post of
Sub Engineer.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that respondent No. 1
has passed the order impugned whereby petitioners have been
reverted to the post of Sub Engineer without affording opportunity
of hearing. They further submit that order impugned is bad in law
and same has been passed in utter violation to the principles of
natural justice. They pray to set aside the order impugned
pertaining to petitioners.
4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective
respondents would oppose. They submit that co-ordinate Bench
in WPS No. 516 of 2017 observed that petitioner therein, namely,
Avinash Singh had been wrongly denied promotion on the basis
of executive instruction and State Government was directed to
hold a review DPC of DPC dated 29.9.2012. They further submit
that pursuant to order passed in that writ petition, review DPC
was convened on 21.12.2019 wherein it was found that 51 Sub
Engineers who were seniors to the petitioners were not
considered for promotion in the original DPC, therefore those Sub
Engineers were offered promotion to the post of Assistant
Engineer and looking to the number of vacancies, petitioners
herein were demoted to the post of Sub Engineer.
5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record.
6) Admittedly, a review DPC was held pursuant to order passed by
the co-ordinate Bench in WPS No. 516 of 2017 and in said review
DPC, it was found that petitioners have been considered for
promotion on the basis of executive instruction ignoring the rules
etc., therefore seniors to the petitioner who were not considered
for promotion in DPC dated 29.9.2012 were offered promotion
and on account of non-availability of sanctioned and vacant posts
of Assistant Engineer, petitioners were demoted to the post of
Sub Engineer. It is not in dispute that during the course of entire
exercise, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the
petitioners.
7) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prakash Ratan Sinha
Versus State of Bihar and Others1 cautioned against the broad
application of 'useless formality theory' and held that any
administrative decision by an "instrumentality of the State" that
results in civil consequences must strictly adhere to the principles
of natural justice and State could not take away a right (the
promotional post) without first affording the individual a fair
opportunity to be heard.
8) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law
laid down by Apex Court in matter of Prakash Ratan Sinha
1. (2009) 14 SCC 690
(supra), order dated 2.12.2022 pertaining to petitioners stands
quashed reserving liberty in favor of respondents to take a fresh
decision after affording due opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners.
9) Accordingly, these petitions stand allowed. Interim relief granted
earlier stands vacated.
Sd/-/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Ajinkya
