Allowed

Vineet Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Jul 2026WPS/5006/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Forest Development Corporation employees challenged a change of promotion criterion from Seniority-cum-Suitability to Merit-cum-Seniority for Deputy Manager (Forestry) Junior posts effected without amending the 1984 Service Regulations. The court held executive instructions cannot override statutory Regulations and quashed the impugned communications.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communications dated 16/04/2026 and 12/06/2026 quashed insofar as they adopt Merit-cum-Seniority; parties to bear own costs; amendment of Regulations not precluded.

Vineet Kumar Singh Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010245002026

2026:CGHC:30651

NAFR

RAHUL JHA

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.07.20 18:02:40 +0530

¶8

WPS No. 5006 of 2026

¶9

Vineet Kumar Singh S/o Shri R B Singh Aged About 41 Years R/o Street 05, Purani Basti, Ward 13, Kohka, Supela, Bhilai Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh

¶10

-- Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Forest And Climate Change, Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

2 - Managing Director Cum Chairman Board Of Directors Chhattisgarh State Van Vikas Nigam, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶14

Respondent(s)

¶15

AND

¶16

WPS No. 5145 of 2026

¶17

1 - Vivek Dewangan S/o Devkanya Dewangan Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 20, Behind Of Dr. Chandra Clinic Parshuram Chowk Champa DistrictJanjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶18

2 - Mahesh Khatkar S/o Ishwar Prashad Khatkar Aged About 38 Years R/o G- 39, Sudha Sadan Gomti Vihar Canal Road Amlidih Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶19

3 - Shilpi Naredia D/o Narayan Naredia Aged About 43 Years R/o House No. 1280, Vinoba Nagar Bilaspur District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶20

¶21

4 - Jagesh Kumar Gond S/o Vedram Gond Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 05, Gond Complex Naka Chowk, Naya Baradwar, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶22

5 - Jaypal Singh Pawar S/o Chandrabhan Pawar Aged About 48 Years R/o Behind Saraswati Shishu Mandir Akaltara, District- Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶23

6 - Sarita Sidar D/o Kaleshwar Ram Sidar Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 61, Baigatoli, Kansabel Jashpur District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶24

7 - Abhinandan Goswami S/o Shri Santosh Goswami Aged About 32 Years Presently Working As Project Range Officer I. P. D. Bhatgaon, DistrictSurajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶25

--- Petitioner(s)

¶26

Versus

¶27

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Forest And Climate Change Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶28

2 - Deputy Secretary Department Of Forest And Climate Change Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶29

3 - Chhattisgarh State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Through Its Managing Director Block A, Office Campus, Sector 24, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶30

Respondent(s)

¶31

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶32

For Petitioners :	Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate
For Resp No. 1/State :	Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, GA
For Resp/Corpn. :	Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha and Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocates

¶33

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)

Order on Board

20/07/2026

Since the common facts and issue involved in both the Writ Petitions, they are being heard and decided together by this common order.

¶38

By way of the present writ petitions, the petitioners have called in question the legality and validity of the communication dated 16/04/2026 and the subsequent administrative approval dated 12/06/2026 whereby the criterion for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager (Forestry) Junior has been changed from "Seniority-cum-Suitability" to "Merit-cum-Seniority".

¶39

(a) Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are working on the post of Project Range Officer in the Chhattisgarh State Forest Development Corporation (henceforth ‘the Corporation’) and are eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager (Forestry) Junior under the Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Employees Service Regulations, 1984 (for short ‘the Regulations’) It is submitted that promotions to the said post have consistently been governed by the principle of Seniority-cum-Suitability, as provided under Regulation 21(2)(स). However, by Agenda Item No. 93/S-1 in the 93rd Meeting of the Board of Directors held on 29/10/2025, the Managing Director was authorized to fill up the vacant direct recruitment posts through Special Promotion by adopting the criterion of Merit-cum-Seniority. Pursuant thereto, communication dated 16/04/2026 was issued by the Managing Director seeking approval from the State Government, which was subsequently approved by the Forest and Climate Change Department vide impugned communication dated 12/06/2026. The petitioners have assailed the aforesaid decision and communications as being contrary to the statutory Regulations and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the

¶40

¶41

Constitution of India. According to the petitioners, without amending the Regulations, the impugned decision has been taken.

¶42

(b) It is further submitted that the petitioners were appointed through direct recruitment in the year 2017 and have completed the requisite qualifying service and training, thereby becoming eligible for consideration for promotion since the year 2022. Despite availability of eligible senior officers, the respondents are willing to promote junior officers by adopting the criterion of Merit-cum-Seniority, thereby superseding the petitioners and other similarly situated senior officers. It is contended that the respondents have arbitrarily altered the settled criterion for promotion without any amendment to the governing Service Regulations and contrary to the consistent practice adopted in the earlier promotion exercises conducted in the years 2022 and 2024, wherein promotions were made on the basis of Seniority-cum-Suitability.

¶43

(c) Learned Senior counsel further submits that the impugned decision is also vitiated on the ground that certain Confidential Reports of some officers were allegedly revised and upgraded after the relevant assessment period, thereby conferring undue advantage upon such officers in the proposed promotion process. It is submitted that the petitioners had submitted representations requesting that promotions be undertaken strictly in accordance with the applicable Service Regulations and that the proposed promotion process be kept in abeyance, however, no action has been taken thereon. It is further argued that the decision of the Board of Directors cannot override the statutory Service Regulations.

¶44

(d) Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the proposal was for permitting the Corporation to make promotion for the post of Deputy Manager

¶45

¶46

(Forestry) Junior, which is meant for direct recruitment, however, for the said promotion, the Respondent/Corporation proposed to adopt the criteria of Merit-cum-Seniority instead of Seniority-cum-Suitability. He would submit that the change of such criteria can only be made by changing the provisions prescribed for criteria in the Regulations of the Corporation whereas in the present case, the Corporation, without making proposal for amendment in Regulations 21 (2) (स) which provides for Seniority-cum-Suitability, vide communication dated 16/04/2026 proposed for promotion on the principle of Merit-cum-Seniority, which is not permissible under the law, and, therefore, the impugned decision and consequential communications are wholly arbitrary, illegal, without authority of law and liable to be quashed.

¶47

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose the aforesaid submission of the petitioners and would submit that the Regulations provides that where suitable candidates are not available through direct recruitment, the vacant post may be filled by way of promotion. They would submit that the communication dated 12/06/2026 granting administrative approval was confined to permitting the vacant posts of Deputy Manager (Forestry) Junior, earmarked for direct recruitment, to be filled by promotion on the principle of Merit-cum-seniority only in the event suitable candidates were not available through direct recruitment. They would further submit that the approval was intended solely to meet the immediate requirement of filling existing vacancies as a temporary administrative arrangement.The impugned action on the part of the respondents is just and proper and there is no illegality at all.

¶48

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as

¶49

¶50

well the material available on record.

¶51

It is an admitted fact that the services of the petitioners are governed by the provisions of the Regulations. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager (Forestry) Junior. Regulations 21(2)(स) categorically provides that for promotion the requisite criteria is Seniority-cum-Suitability. The said Regulations have been framed under Article 87(15) of the Articles of Association of the MP Rajya Van Vikas Limited.

¶52

For the sake of convenience, it would be appropriate to quote Regulations 21(2)(स) for ready reference:-

¶53

“21 Preparation of List of Persons recommended for promotion.

¶54

xxx xxx xxx

¶55

(2) The selection for inclusion in such list shall be based on merit-cum-seniority.*

¶56

xxx xxx xxx

¶57

स ). चतु�र्थ� श्रे�णी� स� चतु�र्थ� श्रे�णी� के� उच्च वे�तुनमा�न मा� , चतु�र्थ� श्रे�णी� स� तु�तु�य श्रे�णी� , तु�तु�य श्रे�णी� स� तु�तु�य श्रे�णी� के� उच्च वे�तुनमा�न मा� , तु�तु�य श्रे�णी� स� द्वि�तु�य श्रे�णी� , द्वि�तु�य श्रे�णी� स� द्वि�तु�य श्रे�णी� के� उच्च वे�तुनमा�न मा� , द्वि�तु�य श्रे�णी� स� प् र मा श्रे�णी� के� पदों� पर पदों�न्नद्वितु वेरिरष्ठतु� सह उपय�क्तुतु� के� आधा�र पर के% जा�एगी�”

¶58

Apart form this, the order dated 13/09/2017 specifies the mode of recruitment to different categories of posts, which has been prescribed in Schedule-II, Serial No. 3 of the Regulations. From which, it is evident that the post of Deputy Manager (Forestry) Junior has to be filled by promotion and direct recruitment in the ratio of 66.67% and 33.33% respectively.

¶59

According to the respondent, since no suitable candidate is available for

¶60

¶61

direct recruitment, they proposed to fill the said post by way of promotion on the principle of Merit-cum-Seniority and in this regard, a communication was sent to State Govt. on 16/04/2026. Pursuant to the said communication sent by the Corporation, the State Govt. vide order impugned dated 12/06/2026 granted administrative approval to fill the posts of Dy. Manager (Forestry) Junior relating to direct recruitment by way of promotion on the principle of Merit-cum-Seniority.

¶62

This Court by order dated 08/07/2026 directed the respondent to file their respective affidavits stating therein that the provisions made for promotion to the post of Deputy Manger (Forest) vide order dated 12/06/2026 are only by way of a temporary arrangement and do not amount to change in the existing rules.

¶63

In compliance with the said order, the State as well as the Corporation have filed their respective affidavits on 10/07/2026 stating that the communication dated 12/06/2026 granting administrative approval is only to the limited extent that, in the event suitable candidates are not available through direct recruitment, the vacant posts of Deputy Manager (Forestry) Junior, earmarked for direct recruitment, may be filled by way of promotion on the principle of merit-cum-seniority. It has been specifically averred that the administrative approval was confined only to the immediate requirement of filling the existing vacancies so as to ensure that the functioning of the Corporation is not adversely affected, and that the same was intended merely as a temporary administrative arrangement. It has further been clarified that the approval dated 12/06/2026 neither incorporates nor approves the remaining portion of the proposed Note (4), and does not amount to any amendment of

¶64

¶65

the applicable Recruitment Rules.

¶66

It is not in dispute that the impugned decision has been taken without amending the Regulations. Regulations 3 of the Regulations provides power to amend the Regulations and despite the said fact, the Authorities failed to amend the same and proceeded to fill the post by applying the principle of Merit-cum-Seniority.

¶67

It is settled law that an executive policy, administrative approval or Government communication, having no statutory force, cannot prevail over the statutory Service Regulations. It is equally settled proposition of law that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all.

¶68

From the communication dated 16/04/2026, which is stated to be a proposal for grant of promotion on the post of Deputy Manager (Forestry) Junior which is meant for direct recruitment, it appears to be a proposal of promotion, but the same itself changes the criterial for promotion from Seniority-cum-Suitability to Merit-cum-Seniority, which has been duly approved by the State Govt. on 12/06/2026. A bare perusal of the communication would make it abundantly clear that the respondents have failed to comply with the Regulations in its true perspective. Unless and until the criteria prescribed under the Regulations 21(2)(स) is amended or proposed to be amended, the same criteria cannot be changed by a communication or any amendment in the Schedule prescribed in the Regulations.

¶69

Once the respondents themselves have admitted that no amendment has been carried out in the governing Regulations, the inevitable consequence is that the criterion prescribed under Regulation 21(2)(स) continues to operate

¶70

¶71

with full force. Any executive decision, administrative approval or resolution of the Board of Directors, howsoever bona fide, cannot have the effect of overriding or modifying a statutory Regulation even though, the Schedule prescribed in the Regulations has been amended.

¶72

In the present case, admittedly no amendment has been carried out in Regulation. The communication dated 16/04/2026 and the consequential administrative approval dated 12/06/2026, insofar as they seek to adopt the criterion of "Merit-cum-Seniority" in respect of filling of direct recruitment post by filling the same by way of for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager (Forestry) Junior, are clearly inconsistent with the statutory Regulations. Such executive instructions cannot prevail over the existing statutory framework.

¶73

It is made clear that this Court has not examined the desirability or otherwise of adopting the principle of "Merit-cum-Seniority" for promotions. The only issue considered is whether such criterion can be introduced without first amending the governing statutory Regulations. The answer, in view of the settled legal position, has necessarily to be in the negative.

¶74

Consequently, the communication dated 16.04.2026 of the Corporation and the subsequent administrative approval granted by the State on 12/06/2026 for adopting the criterion of "Merit-cum-Seniority" to the extent they provide for consideration of promotion to the post of Deputy Manager (Forestry) Junior on the basis of "Merit-cum-Seniority", are hereby quashed and set aside. 19. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents from undertaking amendment of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Employees Service Regulations, 1984, if so advised, by following the

¶75

¶76

procedure prescribed under law. It shall also be open to the respondents, upon such amendment being duly carried out, to undertake the process of promotion strictly in accordance with the amended statutory provisions as also in accordance with law.

¶77

As an upshot, both the Writ Petitions allowed to the extent indicated above, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

¶78

Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶79

Rahul

Vineet Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Pathak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aasharam Aditya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Premlal Ogare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Kumar Raut Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Paretkar Vs Manoj Kumar Pingua

K. Naveen Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh