Disposed¶25

Shatruhan Prasad Kurre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Feb 2026WPS/9019/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Promotion denial; Deputy Jailer seeking promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Prison (Jailor); writ of mandamus refused; promotion held to be State's prerogative; sanctioned but non-functional new district jails; departmental enquiry pending since 2022; direction to conclude enquiry within 8 months and consider promotion expeditiously if suitable; WPS No. 9019 of 2019; Chhattisgarh High Court; Section 226, Constitution of India.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with observations and directions: no mandamus issued for promotion w.e.f. 31.03.2017; State directed to conclude the pending departmental enquiry within 8 months and, if the petitioner is found suitable, to consider his promotion expeditiously. ¶25

Shatruhan Prasad Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents are bound to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Prison (Jailor) w.e.f. 31.03.2017, i.e., whether a writ of mandamus can issue directing the State to make promotions against all sanctioned posts. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The Court declined to issue a writ of mandamus directing the State to issue promotion orders for all sanctioned posts; at the relevant time the Government had shown justifiable reasons for not considering all posts for promotion, and making such promotions is the State's prerogative.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The State was directed to itself conclude the departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner since 2022 within an outer limit of 8 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶24

Key takeaways

If the petitioner is found suitable for promotion, the respondents shall consider his case for promotion expeditiously.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh (Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.) disposed of a writ petition by a serving Deputy Jailer seeking a direction for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Prison (Jailor) w.e.f. 31.03.2017. Holding that, although posts were sanctioned, the Government had shown justifiable reasons for not considering all posts for promotion (nine new district jails sanctioned but not functional), the Court refused to issue a writ of mandamus, observing that making such promotions is the State's prerogative. However, noting a departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner since 2022, the Court directed the State to conclude the enquiry within an outer limit of 8 months and, if the petitioner is found suitable for promotion, to consider his case expeditiously.

2026:CGHC:7515

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 9019 of 2019

¶6

1. Shatruhan Prasad Kurre S/o Late Shri B.R. Kurre Aged About 48 Years Working As Deputy Jailer, Jail Parisar, Bemetara, DistrictBemetara, Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2. The Director General Of Police (Prison) Jail And Correctional Services, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Chairman, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner	: Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocate appears
	on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. Advocate General
For Respondent No. 3	: Dr. SudeepAgrawal, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

11.02.2026

¶17

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Section 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of direction to the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Prison (Jailor) w.e.f 31.03.2017.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the year 2019 his case for promotion on the post of Deputy Jail

¶19

Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH YADAV YADAV Date: 2026.02.11 18:20:32 +0530

¶20

¶21

Superintendent has not been considered by the State and the other similar situated persons have been given promotion.

¶22

The State have filed their return in which they have stated that new 9 district jails were though sanctioned, but not functional, therefore, the Government has not considered their case for promotion on the post of Deputy Jail Superintendent. It has also been stated by the learned State counsel that after filing of this writ petition also, there is some inquiry initiated against the petitioner which is pending since 2022.

¶23

Since, at the relevant time though posts were sanctioned, but the Government has shown their justifiable reason in not considering all the posts for promotion and this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the State to issue promotion order for all the posts. It is the prerogative of the State where the writ of mandamus cannot be issued at this juncture.

¶24

However, since the departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner from the year 2022, it is directed that the State itself conclude the departmental enquiry within outer limit of 8 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is also directed that if the petitioner is found suitable for promotion, the respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner expeditiously for promotion.

¶25

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶26

Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶27

Manish

Shatruhan Prasad Kurre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shatruhan Prasad Kurre 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

D.D. Tonder Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamal Kishore Soni Vs Sidharth Komal Pardeshi

Mahaveer Chaik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Shadija Vs Nishchal Rathore

Bhupeshwari Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aasman Mishra Vs Ku. Geeta Kewat