Sanjay Kumar Sonwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:19027

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 6572 of 2021

¶6

1 - Sanjay Kumar Sonwani S/o Patiraj Sonwani Aged About 42 Years Posted As Constable In City Kotwaqli Surajpur, P.S. Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - Sunil Sonwani, S/o Deolal Sonwani, Aged About 36 Years Posted As Constable In Police Officer Surajpur, P.S. Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

3 - Ghanshyam Sonwani, S/o Purshottam Sonwani Aged About 34 Years Posted As Constable In City Kotwali Surajpur, P.S. Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

4 - Ramnarayan Sonwani S/o Jagdish Prasad Sonwani Aged About 36 Years Posted As Constable In P.S. Basdel, P.S. Basdei, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

5 - Radheshyam Kurre S/o Hiraram Kurre, Aged About 42 Years Posted As Constable In P.S. Premnagar, P.S. Premnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

6 - Jheturam Sonwani, S/o Late Bhandari Ram Aged About 42 Years Posted As Constable In P.S. Jhilmili, P.S. Jhilmili, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

7 - Pradeep Kumar Sonwani S/o Ramkripal Sonwani Aged About 42 Years Psted As Constable In P.S. Basdei, P.S. Basdei, P.S. Basdei, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

8 - Hridaylal Patel S/o Kamalsai Patel Aged About 38 Years Posted As Constable In Police Line Surajpur, P.S. Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶14

9 - Laxminarayan Mirrey S/o Late S.R. Mirrey Aged About 33 Years Posted As Constable In City Lotwali Surajpur, P.S. Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶15

2

¶16

10 - Aditya Kumar S/o Jagsai Aged About 38 Years Posted As Constable In P.S. Odgi, P.S. Odgi, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶17

... Petitioner(s)

¶18

versus

¶19

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home/ Police, Mntralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Police Station Rakhi, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶20

2 - Director General Of Police (D.G.P.), Police Headquarters (Phq), Near Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur P.S. Rakhi, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶21

3 - Inspector General Of Police Surguja Range District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶22

4 - Superintendent Of Police Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶23

... Respondent(s)

¶24

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Nasimuddin Ansari, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer

¶25

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶26

Order on Board

¶27

24/04/2026

¶28

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief:-

¶29

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order or suitable direction for calling upon entire record from the respondents in respect of promotion of Constable to the Head Constable.

¶30

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the S.O.P.25/2021 dated 06/08/2021 because in this S.O.P. reservation roster has not been followed.

¶31

3

¶32

10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ or order or appropriate direction to the respondents to apply new promotion roster prescribed by notification dated 26.11.2012.

¶33

10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief by issuing any other suitable writ, direction or order, deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of petition. ”

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners, who are members of the Scheduled Caste community, have been deprived of their legitimate right of being considered for promotion to the post of Head Constable. He would further submit that the petitioners have been denied promotion to the post of Head Constable in contravention of the circular issued by the State Government dated 26.11.2012, though the said circular provides for a reservation roster for the purpose of promotion.

¶35

On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003, which provided for reservation in promotion, has already been struck down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Sharad Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others, vide judgment dated 04.02.2019. He would further submit that pursuant to the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, the State has taken a decision not to grant reservation in promotion, which is also in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Jarnail Singh and ors. v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and ors. (2018) 10 SCC 396 and M. Nagaraj and ors. v. Union of India and ors. (2006) 8 SCC 212 .

¶36

Heard.

¶37

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, particularly that the benefit of reservation cannot be extended in the matter of promotion

¶38

4

¶39

as Rule 5 of the Rules, 2003 has already been struck down by the Hon’ble Division Bench, no case is made out for indulgence. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed .

Sd/-

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

JUDGE

Nadim

Sanjay Kumar Sonwani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Sonwani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharad Kumar Dighraskar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. M.K. Naik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anjulata Dhiwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikalp Shrivastava Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Purnchandra Rath Vs Nai Dunia, a Unit of Jagran Prakashan Ltd.

Jyoti Verma Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd.