Bharat Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Bharat Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

1

2026:CGHC:743

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 166 of 2022

1 - Bharat Kumar Pradhan S/o Late Shri Vishnu Charan Pradhan Aged About 60 Years Occupation (Service) Posted As Agricultural Development Officer , Block Pithora , Tehsil Pithora , District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. R/o Behind Petrol Pump Tikrapara , Lakhagarh, Police Station And Tehsil Pithora District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - Director Agriculture Indrawati Bhawan, Ii Floor, Block 2, Naya Raipur , Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3 - Deputy Director Agriculture Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

4 - Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer Saraipali/mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

5 - Senior Agriculture Development Officer Pithora District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Ms. Kiran Sahu, Advocates For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Dy. G. A.

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput)

Order on Board

06/01/2026

Following relief(s) has been claimed in this writ petition:-

10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ (s), order

(s), direction (s) by quashing the impugned order dated 04/09/2021 (Annexure P/3) and further commanding the respondent authorities, for considering afresh the

2

petitioner's claim of promotion on the post of Senior Agricultural Development Officer.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the respondents authorities for its kind perusal.

10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 04.09.2021 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2. By way of the said order, the petitioner’s representation seeking promotion from the post of Agricultural Development Officer to Senior Agricultural Development Officer was rejected. He further submits that the petitioner, presently working as an Agricultural Development Officer, is entitled to be promoted to the post of Senior Agricultural Development Officer. The petitioner made representations for the same, and thereafter a writ petition was filed which was registered as WPS No.2047/ 2021. Vide its order dated 09.06.2021, this Court observed that the representation made by the petitioner may be decided within a period of 90 days and thus in compliance of the order of this Court, the impugned order dated 04.09.2021 (Annexure P-3) was passed denying the promotion to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is, in all respects, eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Agricultural Development Officer but his candidature for promotion was illegally denied. Thus, the relief as claimed may be granted.

Opposing the submissions, learned counsel for the respondent/ State submits that a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), consisting of four members, was convened by the respondents. The petitioner was not found eligible for consideration; therefore, his name was not considered by the DPC. As he did not fall within the zone of consideration and had not obtained the prescribed benchmark, therefore, there is no illegality and irregularity in the impugned order.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3

A perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner had made a representation for grant of promotion and in light of order passed by this Court, his representation was considered but subsequently rejected by the impugned order. A perusal of the return filed by the respondent indicates that minimum 10 marks was required to be obtained by employees in all 5 years of their Annual Confidential Report (ACR). It further reflects that the petitioner secured “Kha” grading in the ACRs for the years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15 and secured “Ga” grading in the ACR for the year 2012-13. Thus, the petitioner secured a total of 9 marks, which is less than the minimum marks fixed by the DPC i.e. 10 marks for consideration of his case for promotion. Consequently, the case of the petitioner was not considered. In this writ petition the grading given in the ACR of the petitioner has not been under challenge. The respondents have considered the grading and found that the petitioner has not obtained the minimum 10 marks required for consideration of his case for promotion. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2026.01.08 10:45:01 +0530

JUDGE

Parul