Jainarayan Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:12940-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WA No. 36 of 2025

¶6

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)

¶7

versus

¶8

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

¶9

2 - The Director (Prosecution) Chhattisgarh, H.Q., Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur Through It's Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

... 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

¶12

Judgment on Board

¶13

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶14

18/03/2025

¶15

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.

¶16

2

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

4. The facts, in brief, as projected by the appellant/writ petitioner are that the appellant was working on the post of District Prosecution OfÏcer. As per the service Rules, 100% post of Deputy Director, Prosecution is to be filled up by promotion from the post of District Prosecution OfÏcer. 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

¶20

3

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

4

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

¶28

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

¶29

5

¶30

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.

¶31

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 ofÏcers were to be promoted in the unreserved category and 2 ofÏcers in the unreserved category were to be regularized, in such manner total 9 ofÏcers 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

¶32

6

¶33

at Sr. No.11 in the said gradation list was promoted, but the ofÏcer 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.

¶34

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.

¶35

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶36

Amit

¶37

AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.03.20 11:15:25 +0530

Jainarayan Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jainarayan Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faisal Usmani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rahul Gupta (In Person) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Utsav Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Subal Kumar Choudhary @ Subi Babu

Dilip Sidar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vivek Kumar Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh