Dismissed

S. D. Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jan 2025WPS/3834/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging non-promotion to the post of Principal in Government Polytechnics were dismissed. The Court held that the law laid down in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar applies: rights to promotion are governed by the rules in force on the date of consideration by the Departmental Promotional Committee, not by the rules in force when vacancies arose. Petitioners did not meet qu

What the court decided

AI extract

S. D. Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

1/ 12

¶2

(WPS No. 5458 of 2014 and WPS Nos. 3766 & 3834 of 2015)

¶3

2025:CGHC:1330

¶4

AFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WRIT PETITION (SERVICE) NO. 5458 OF 2014

¶7

1. D.S. Pawar, S/o Shri Buddhan Singh Pawar, aged about 55 years, presently working as Head of the Department, Electrical Engineering, Govt. Polytechnic College, Mahasamund, R/o F/7 Old Civil Lines, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Technical Education, Manpower, Science and Technology Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2. Director Technical Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through: Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

4. Dr. Amitabh Dubey, Principal, Government Girl Polytechnic Jagdalpur and Printipal, Government Coeducation Polytechnic Jagdalpur as Additional Charge, District Jagdalpur (C.G.)

¶14

5. Shri Ramji Pandey, Principal, Govt. Polytechnic Koriya and Principal, Govt. Ambikapur as Additional Charge, District Sarguja (C.G.)

¶15

6. Shri Ashwani Kumar Kherwar, Principal, Govt. Polytechnic Ramanujganj, District Balrampur (C.G.)

¶16

7. Smt. Mamta Agrawal, Principal, Govt. Polytechnic Korba, District Korba, District Korba (C.G.)

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

For Petitioner

¶19

: - Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate.

¶20

2/ 12 (WPS No. 5458 of 2014 and WPS Nos. 3766 & 3834 of 2015)

¶21

For Respondents 1 & 2/State :-	Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent 3/CGPSC :-	Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate.
For Respondents 4 to 6 :-	Mr. Tanmay Thomas, Advocate, on behalf of
	Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate.

¶22

And

¶23

WRIT PETITION (SERVICE) NO. 3766 OF 2015

¶24

1. Avinash Kumar Jain, S/o Late H.G. Jain, aged about 55 years, R/o 55/21, Nehru Nagar (West), Bhilai, Police Station and Post Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

¶25

... Petitioner(s)

¶26

Versus

¶27

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Technical Education Manpower, Science and Technology Department, Mahandi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶28

2. Director, Technical Education, Department Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶29

3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶30

4. Smt. Usha Jain, Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶31

5. Prakash Kumar Pandey, Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)

¶32

6. Kajal Roy, Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.)

¶33

7. Dr. Amitabh Dubey, Principal, Govt. Girls Polytechnic, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)

¶34

8. Smt. Mamta Agrawal, Head of Department, Computer Science, Govt. Polytechnic, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)

¶35

9. R.J. Pandey, Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Korea, District Korea (C.G.)

¶36

10. Ashwani Kumar Khairwar, Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶37

... Respondent(s)

¶38

3/ 12

¶39

(WPS No. 5458 of 2014 and WPS Nos. 3766 & 3834 of 2015)

¶40

For Petitioner	:-	Mr. Manoj Paranjpe & Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocates.
For Respondents 1 & 2/Stat	e :-	Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent 3/CGPSC	:-	Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate.
For Respondent 6	:-	Ms. Natasha Khan, Advocate.
For Respondents 5,7,9&10	:-	Mr. Tanmay Thomas, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate.

¶41

WITH

¶42

WRIT PETITION (SERVICE) NO. 3834 OF 2015

¶43

1. S.D. Sahu, S/o Late R.D. Sahu, aged about 55 years, R/o. Govt. Polytechnic Gariyaband, Police Station and Post Gariyaband, Civil District Raipur and Revenue District Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶44

... Petitioner(s)

¶45

Versus

¶46

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Technical Education Manpower, Science and Technology Department, Mahandi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶47

2. Director, Technical Education, Department Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶48

3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶49

4. Gelus Ram Sahu, Registrar, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

¶50

5. M.F. Kureshi, Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (C.G.)

¶51

6. Smt. Usha Jain, Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶52

4/ 12

¶53

(WPS No. 5458 of 2014 and WPS Nos. 3766 & 3834 of 2015)

¶54

7. Prakash Kumar Pandey, Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)

¶55

8. Kajal Roy, Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.)

¶56

9. Dr. Amitabh Dubey, Principal, Govt. Girls Polytechnic, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)

¶57

10. Smt. Mamta Agrawal, Head of Department, Computer Science, Govt. Polytechnic, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)

¶58

11. R.J. Pandey, Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Korea, District Korea (C.G.)

¶59

12. Ashwani Kumar Khairwar, Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶60

... Respondent(s)

¶61

For Petitioner	:-	Mr. Manoj Paranjpe & Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocates.
For Respondents 1 & 2/Stat	e :-	Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent 3/CGPSC	:-	Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate.
For Respondents 5 & 8	:-	Ms. Natasha Khan, Advocate.
For Respondents 4,5,7,9,11 &12	:-	Mr. Tanmay Thomas, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate.

¶62

[Single Bench ]

¶63

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶64

Order on Board (08-01-2025)

¶65

1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in the

¶66

present batch of three Writ Petitions, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common Order.

¶67

5/ 12

¶68

(WPS No. 5458 of 2014 and WPS Nos. 3766 & 3834 of 2015)

¶69

2. All the Petitioners in the three Writ Petitions were promoted on the post of Head of Department (‘HOD’ for short) with effect from 14.6.2007. During their promotion on the post of HOD, Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Gazetted) Service (Teaching CadrePolytechnic) Recruitment Rules, 2005 were applicable (‘Rules of 2005’ for short). The said Rules of 2005 were later on repealed and new rules namely – Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Teaching Cadre-Polytechnic) (Gazetted) Service Rules, 2014 (‘Rules of 2014’ for short) came into force with effect from 12.5.2014. In ScheduleIV framed under Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules of 2014, qualification and experience for promotion from the post of HOD to the post of Principal have been prescribed, by which the candidate must have three years minimum period of experience as HOD (Engineering/Technical) for eligibility of promotion and she/he also must have prescribed qualification of Bachelor’s degree and Master’s degree of appropriate Branch in Engineering/Technology from a recognized

¶70

University/Institute with First Class or equivalent at either Bachelor’s or Master’s level etc.,. For ready reference, relevant part of Schedule-IV of the Rules of 2014 is being reproduced herein-under:-

¶71

6/ 12

¶72

(WPS No. 5458 of 2014 and WPS Nos. 3766 & 3834 of 2015)

¶73

Serial No.	Name of Service/Post from which promotion will be made	Minimum period of experience for eligibility of promotion	Name of post to which promotion will be made	Prescribed Educational qualification and experience	Name of members of the Departmental Promotion Committee
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
1.	Head of Department (Engineering/ Technical)	3 years	Principal	(1) Bachelor’s degree and Master’s degree of appropriate branch in Engineering/ Technology from a recognized University/ Institute with First Class or equivalent at either Bachelor’s or Master’s level. (2) Minimum of 15 years relevant experience in teaching/research/ industry out of which at least 03 years shall be at the level of head of department or equivalent. In case of Architecture professional practice of 15 years as certified by the Council of Architecture shall also be considered valid. OR (1) Bachelor’s degree and Master’s degree of appropriate branch of Engineering/ Technology from	1. Chairman of Public Service Commission or Member nominated by the Chairman- Chairman 2. Secretary In-charge Technical Education, Public Employment and Science and Technology- Member 3. Director of Technical Education- Member

¶74

7/ 12

¶75

(WPS No. 5458 of 2014 and WPS Nos. 3766 & 3834 of 2015)

¶76

a recognized
University/
Institute with
First Class or
equivalent at
either Bachelor’s
or Master’s level
and Ph.D. or
equivalent, in appropriate discipline in
Engineering/ Technology from
a recognized
University/ Institute. (2) Minimum of
10 years relevant
experience in teaching/research/
industry out of
which at least 03
years shall be at
the level of head
of department or
equivalent.
In case of
promotion from
the post of HOD
Architecture, professional
practice of 10
years as certified
by the Council of
Architecture shall
also be considered valid.

¶77

3. A meeting of the Departmental Promotional Committee

¶78

(‘DPC’ for short) was convened on 27.5.2014 in which all the candidates were considered and the private Respondents herein were promoted on the post of Principal by Order dated 25.6.2014. However, the Petitioners herein were not promoted on the said post of

¶79

8/ 12

¶80

(WPS No. 5458 of 2014 and WPS Nos. 3766 & 3834 of 2015)

¶81

Principal, holding that they did not have the prescribed educational qualifications as per Rules of 2014.

¶82

4. Questioning the legality, validity and correctness of their non-promotion on the post of Principal and the promotion of the private Respondents on the said post, the present Writ Petitions have been preferred separately by the Petitioners herein.

¶83

5. It is the case of the Petitioner that in all the cases vacancies arose from the year 2005 to 2013 and therefore their case for promotion ought to have been considered in accordance with the Rules of 2005 (which has been repealed by the Rules of 2014). However, the State has filed its reply stating that only the rules which are applicable on the date of consideration would be applicable and not the rules which have been repealed.

¶84

6. Mr. B.P. Singh and Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Counsels appearing for the respective Petitioners, submit that the case of the Petitioners ought to have been considered in accordance with law as they became eligible for promotion on 13.6.2010 and were having requisite qualification for being promoted to the post of Principal as per Rules of 2005 and therefore they are entitled for promotion to the post of Principal.

¶85

9/ 12

¶86

(WPS No. 5458 of 2014 and WPS Nos. 3766 & 3834 of 2015)

¶87

7. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State in all the three Writ Petitions, submits that the law in this regard is well-settled by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Raj Kumar and Others1 in which it has clearly been held that right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of eligible candidates and applicable rules would be the rules existing i.e. rule in force. Therefore, despite having vacancies, if any, arose from 2005 to 2013 that would not be relevant and the applicable rules would be the Rules of 2014 which have came into force with effect from 12.5.2014 and as per the Rules of 2014, the Petitioners did not have the prescribed qualifications on the date when their cases were considered for promotion to the post of Principal and as such they have rightly not been promoted.

¶88

8. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent-Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission as well as Mr. Tanmay Thomas and Ms. Natasha Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the respective private Respondents, adopt the submissions made by learned State Counsel and support the stand taken by the State.

¶89

1 (2003) 3 SCC 773

¶90

10/ 12

¶91

(WPS No. 5458 of 2014 and WPS Nos. 3766 & 3834 of 2015)

¶92

9. I have heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

¶93

10. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners were having qualifications for promotion on the post of Principal as per Rules of 2005 and on the date of consideration i.e. on 27.5.2014 when the cases of promotion on the post of Principal were considered, the DPC did not found the Petitioners having the prescribed qualifications in terms of educational qualifications for the post of Principal, as per Rules of 2014.

¶94

11. Now, the core question for consideration would be: “When the vacancies have arisen prior to the coming into force of the Rules of 2014 with effect from 12.5.2014, whether the Petitioners would be governed by the old Rules of 2005 or the news Rules of 2014?”

¶95

12. The said issue is no longer res integra and stands finally and conclusively decided by the Supreme Court resolving the issue in State of Himachal Pradesh and

¶96

Others v. Raj Kumar and Others1 and it has clearly been held that the rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services and also held that the

¶97

11/ 12

¶98

(WPS No. 5458 of 2014 and WPS Nos. 3766 & 3834 of 2015)

¶99

observations in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao , (1983) 3 SCC 284, that posts which fell vacant prior to the amendment of Rules would be governed by old Rules and not by new Rules do not reflect the correct position of law. In this regard, the relevant paragraphs 85.1, 85.2 & 87 are being reproduced herein under:-

¶100

“85.1. The statement in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao [ Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao , (1983) 3 SCC 284 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 382] that, “ the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules ”, does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing services under the Union and the States under Part XIV of the Constitution. It is hereby overruled.

¶101

85.2. The rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services.

¶102

87. We have already held that there is no right for an employee outside the rules governing the services. We have also followed and applied the Constitution Bench decisions in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel [ Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel , (1985) 3 SCC 398 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 672] and more particularly the decision in Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India [ Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India , (1968) 1 SCR 185 : AIR 1967 SC 1889] that the services under the State are in the nature of a status , a hallmark of which is the need of the State to unilaterally alter the rules to subserve the public interest. The 2006 Rules, governing the services of the respondents came into force immediately after they were notified. There is no provision in the said rules to enable the respondents to be considered as per the 1966 Rules. The matter must end here. There is no other right that Respondents 1 to 3 can claim for such consideration. ”

¶103

12/ 12

¶104

(WPS No. 5458 of 2014 and WPS Nos. 3766 & 3834 of 2015)

¶105

13. In light of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to herein-above, the only right for the Petitioners to be considered for promotion would be in accordance with rules which prevail on the date on which consideration for promotion takes place. In the instant case, on 27.5.2014 when the cases of promotion on the post of Principal were considered by the DPC, admittedly the Petitioners did not have the prescribed qualifications for promotion on the post of Principal, as per Rules of 2014.

¶106

14. Accordingly and in view of above, I do not find any merit in the present Writ Petitions which deserve to be and are hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶107

Sd/-

¶108

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶109

sharad

¶110

Digitally signed
SHARAD by SHARADKUMAR YADAV
KUMARYADAV Date:2025.01.1312:50:53
+0530

S. D. Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

S. D. Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishan Lal Nishad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pankaj Sahu Vs Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit

Dr. Govind Prasad Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rukhmani Bai Verma Vs Bharat Lal

Snehaprabha Vs Smt. Kamla Bai

Ghasin Bai Vs Madanlal Goyanka