Onkar Prasad Dahariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.03.23 14:13:19 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:13644

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 1166 of 2021

¶7

1. Onkar Prasad Dahariya S/o Lujhuram Dahariya Aged About 53 Years R/o Sai Nagar, Uslapur Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2. Abhay Chandu Pal S/o Shri Nohar Das Aged About 46 Years R/o Mig 54, Sagardeep Enclave, Ameri, Uslapur. Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3. Vijay Kumar Dhiraj S/o Shri Ramdas Dhiraj Aged About 45 Years R/o Shri Sai Vihar Colony, Near Railway Crossing, Ameri, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

2. Director Directorate Of Agriculture Department Chhattisgarh Raipur, Krishi Vikas Bhavan, Sector - 19, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

3. Deputy Director Agriculture, Directorate Agriculture Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Petitioners :	Ms. Anushree Mishra, Advocate
For State :	Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, P.L.

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

23.3.2026

¶20

1) By way of this petition, petitioner have sought following reliefs :-

¶21

2

¶22

10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal.

¶23

10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by quashing the impugned promotion list dated 08.12.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no.3.

¶24

10.3) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ by directing the respondent authorities to consider the name of petitioners for promotion.

¶25

10.4) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.

¶26

2) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are holding the post of Rural Agricultural Extension Officer (RAEO) under respondent-department and their services are governed by Chhattisgarh Sub-ordinate Agricultural Class-III (Non-Ministerial) Service Recruitment Rules, 2010 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Rules of 2010’]. She further submits that names of petitioners have not been considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Development Officer (ADO) and juniors to petitioners have been promoted vide order dated 8.12.2020 without assigning any reason as to why the names of petitioners have not been considered. She contends that respondent authorities may be directed to consider the names of petitioners for promotion to the next higher post.

¶27

3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that earlier, 100% posts of Assistant Development Officers used to be filled by way of promotion but State Government inserted an amendment in the

¶28

3

¶29

Rules of 2010 in the year 2010 itself. He further submits that by virtue of said amendment, 45% posts of Assistant Development Officer are to filled up by Agriculture/ Agricultural Engineering/ Horticulture/ Agricultural Biotechnology qualified graduates ; 45% posts are to be filled by other graduates and rest 10% posts are to be filled up by promotion from the post of Surveyor. He contends juniors to the petitioners were graduates in afore-stated disciplines, therefore their names were considered for promotion to the next higher post. He further contends that the amendment incorporated in the year 2010 has not been challenged in this petition, therefore this petition deserves to dismissed.

¶30

4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶31

5) Taking into consideration the dispute involved in the present case, this petition is hereby being disposed reserving liberty in favor of petitioners to make detailed representation(s) at the earliest before the Director, Directorate of Agriculture, State of Chhattisgarh, who in turn is directed to consider and decide such representation(s) by way of a speaking order, preferably within period of three months from the date of copy of such representation(s).

¶32

6) Accordingly, this petition stands disposed in above-stated terms.

¶33

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶34

A j i n k y a

Onkar Prasad Dahariya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Onkar Prasad Dahariya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Kumar Meshram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Kumar Mishra Vs a- Smt. Tara Devi (Delted) as Per Honble Court Order Dated 26/11/2021.

Tapan Kumar Ghosh, Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited

Smt. Lata Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Snehlata Gupta Alias Babli Vs Hitesh Gupta @ Lucky Gupta

Balaram Vs State of Chhattisgarh