1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7077 of 2021 1 - L.C. Kosle S/o Shri Ramji Kosle, Aged About 36 Years Presently Posted As Platoon Commander, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, 2nd Battalion, Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ravi Singh Thakur, S/o Shri Surendra Singh Thakur, Aged About 37 Years Presently Posted As Platoon Commander, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, Suraksha Battalion, Mana Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Vinod Tonde, S/o Shri Mahesh Ram, Aged About 36 Years Presently Posted As Platoon Commander, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, Pts Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Saiyad Ehsan Ali, S/o Shri Saiyad Armaan, Aged About 38 Years Presently Posted As Platoon Commander, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, 2nd Battalion, Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shri Ashok Singh Raghuwanshi, Company Commander, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, Suraksha Battalion, Mana Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shri Rajendra Prasad Mishra, Company Commander, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, 14th Battalion, Dalli Rajhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Amrito Das, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Yashkaran Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.05.2026 1. Heard. -2- 2. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records from the respondents with respect to preparation of the gradation list published on 27.11.2019 and also the record concerning issuance of the order dated 03.11.2021 (ΑΝΝEXURE P-1). 10.2. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the order dated 03.11.2021 (ΑNNEXURE P-1). 10.3. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to rectify the gradation list and place the petitioners maintaining their inter se seniority immediately after serial No. 59 in the gradation list of Platoon Commander as in the year 2013. 10.4. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to grant the petitioners all the benefits which have been accrued to his juniors had the petitioners been placed after serial No. 59 in the gradation list as in the year 2013. 10.5. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 3. The facts in brief are that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process for appointment to 380 posts of Subedars, Platoon Commanders and Sub-Inspectors pursuant to advertisement dated 18.09.2006. A preliminary examination was conducted on 24.12.2006 and Main Examination was conducted on 04.02.2007 & 05.02.2007. A merit list was published on 08.04.2008. The petitioners were appointed pursuant to merit list dated 28.08.2008. Thereafter, 8 questions of Main Examination were deleted and the position of the petitioners got lowered in the merit list and revised merit list was published on 27.06.2009, wherein, names of the petitioners were absent. The petitioners 3 challenged the said decision of the respondent authorities by filing WPS No.3204 of 2009, wherein, initially, interim protection was granted in favour of the petitioners and subsequently, writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 06.09.2011. The petitioners approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP No.26341- 26342 of 2011 and those SLPs were disposed of vide order dated 09.07.2013, wherein, following observations were made : “26. Our considered view, undergone the appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the respondent-State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and their dependents but also but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list. 27. Accordingly, we direct the respondent-State to appoint the appellants in the revised merit list placing them at the bottom of the said list. The candidates who have crossed the minimum statutory age for appointment shall be accommodated with suitable age relaxation. 28. We clarify that their appointment shall for all intents and purpose be fresh appointment which would not entitle the appellants to any back wages, seniority or any other benefit based on their earlier appointment.” 4. Subsequently, revised merit list was prepared on 27.03.2013 and the petitioners were placed at the bottom treating them fresh appointees. 5. The petitioners made representations before the respondent authorities claiming therein seniority with effect from initial date of appointment i.e 28.08.2008 and said representation was rejected vide order dated 03.11.2021. 6. Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners -4- would argue that the petitioners were initially appointed vide order dated 28.08.2008 and subsequently, revised merit list was published on 27.03.2013 but the candidates who were appointed in between 2008 to March 2013 have been placed above the petitioners in the seniority list. He would contend that the seniority list published by the Department is in contravention to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would pray to (i) quash order dated 03.11.2021 and (ii) issue a direction to the respondent authorities to place the petitioners at appropriate position in the gradation list. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Saini, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Das. He would submit that after deletion of 8 questions from Main Examination, the position of the petitioners got lowered in the merit list and they were not found suitable for selection and appointment and said decision was challenged by filing WP(S) No.3204 of 2009 before the High Court. He would contend that pursuant to interim order, the petitioners were working on the appointed posts and therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court secured their appointment and directed to appoint the petitioners herein in the revised merit list placing them at the bottom of the said list. He would further contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further directed to treat the petitioners as fresh appointees for all purposes, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim seniority with effect from 28.08.2008. He would submit that writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be 5 dismissed. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in concluding para directed the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioners in the revised merit list placing them at the bottom. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further clarified that the appointment of the petitioners shall be fresh appointment for all purposes including back wages, seniority or any other benefits and they would not be entitled to claim any benefits based on their earlier appointment. 10.In the present petition, the petitioners have claimed seniority based on their earlier appointment which is not permissible at all in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 28 of the judgment. 11.The petitioners have rightly been treated fresh appointees in the revised merit list published on 27.03.2013 and the candidates appointed prior in time have rightly been placed above the petitioners. Accordingly, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order dated 03.11.2021 passed by the respondent authorities. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha