Shivendra Bahadur Kamthe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANTTAMRAKAR TAMRAKARDate:2026.07.20 10:30:44 +0530

CGHC010258392021

2026:CGHC:30510

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPS No. 5683 of 2021

¶8

Shivendra Bahadur Kamthe S/o M.S. Kamthe Aged About 38 Years Occupation Assistant Food Officer At District Balrampur Ramanujganj , R/o Bhanora, Near Municipal Office Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Permanent Address At/post Bhilai Bazar, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Food, Civil Supply And Consumer Affairs Protection Department At, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur , Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

The Director Directorate, Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Affairs Protection Department At, Indiravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur , Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

3. Vinay Bhushan Kujur Aged About 36 Years Occupation Assistant Food Officer At District Janjgir Champa , District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Bhoi, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate For State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. Government Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

17.07.2026

¶19

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶20

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the Respondent Authorities to amend the Gradation List of the year 2019 and petitioner seniority shall be considered after preparing a fresh Gradation List.

¶21

2

¶22

10.2 The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate order/direction to the respondent authorities to prepare proper Gradation List for every year and place the petitioner as per his seniority.

¶23

10.3 Any other relief/relief's which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case with cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 3, who was promoted to the post of Assistant Food Officer on 22.12.2016 has been placed above the petitioner in the gradation list, whereas, petitioner was promoted to the said post on 26.08.2014. He would pray for a direction to the respondents to correct the position of the petitioner in the gradation list.

¶25

On the other hand, Mr. Saini, Dy. Government Advocate would contend that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were appointed on the post of Food Inspector vide order dated 17.12.2007 and the position of the respondent No. 3 was above the petitioner at Serial No. 59 in the select list, whereas, name of the petitioner was at 64. He would contend that the name of respondent No. 3 was in zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Food Officer in Departmental Promotion Committee ( DPC) convened in the year 2014, but as Annual Confidential Report(ACRs) of respondent No. 3 were not available, his name was kept in sealed cover envelop. He would submit that the name of the petitioner was considered and he was promoted to the post of Assistant Food Officer vide order dated 26.08.2014. It is argued by Mr. Saini that name of respondent No. 3 was considered for promotion on 22.12.2016 with effect from 26.08.2014 and, therefore, petitioner is claiming his position above the respondent No. 3 in the gradation list. He would

¶26

3

¶27

submit that instant petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶29

In the selection list, name of the respondent No. 3 was at Serial No. 59, whereas, name of the petitioner was at Serial No. 64. On account of nonavailability of ACRs, the name of respondent No. 3 could not be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Food Officer in the year 2014, whereas, petitioner was promoted to the said post vide order dated 26.08.2014. The department again convened DPC and considered the name of respondent No. 3 for promotion and order was passed in this regard on 22.12.2016, but he was granted promotion with effect from 26.08.2014, and therefore, his name has been placed above the petitioner in the gradation list dated 01.04.2019.

¶30

Having considered the facts discussed-above, particularly, respondent No. 3 was above the petitioner in the select list as well as in gradation list, and respondent No. 3 has been granted promotion vide order dated 22.12.2016 with effect from 26.08.2014, therefore, no case is made out for interference.

¶31

Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶34

$iddhant

Shivendra Bahadur Kamthe v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivendra Bahadur Kamthe v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivani Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajeet Singh Kshatriya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Krishna Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Subhas Verma Vs Jawahar

Ku. Rukmani Kaiwart Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chitralekha Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh