1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3163 of 2022 1 - Aparna Arya W/o Diwakar Rao, Aged About 48 Years Presently Working As Food Safety Officer, O/o The Dy. Dy. Director, Food And Drug Administration, Janjgir Champa, R/o Juna Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rakhi Thakur D/o Shri Bhagwan Singh Thakur Aged About 40 Years Presently Posted And Working As Food Safety Officer, O/o The Dy. Director, Food And Drug Administration, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sarita Patel, D/o Shri Sagar Dutta, Aged About 33 Years Presently Posted And Working As Food Safety Officer, O/o The Dy. Director, Food And Drug Administration, Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Controller, Food And Drugs Administration, Chhattisgarh, 4th Floor, Block- 1, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Food Safety Commissioner, 4th Floor, Block-1, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sarveshwar Kumar Yadav Food Safety Officer, O/o The Dy. Director, Food And Drug Administration, Kalibadi Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sidharth Pandey, Food Safety Officer, Office Of The Dy. Director, Food And Drug Administration, Kalibadi Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 6 - Ajay Singh, Food Safety Officer, Office Of The Dy. Director, Food And Drug Administration, Santarabadi, Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rahul Ambast, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 28.4.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought following reliefs:- “10.1 It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the Petitioners from the possession of the respondents, for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the impugned seniority/gradation list dated 13/09/2021 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No.2, Controller, Food & Drug Administration, Chhattisgarh Raipur, in respect of Food Safety Officers so far as with regard to private respondents who are at sl.no.27, 30 & 31 of the list in the aforesaid seniority/gradation list.. 10.3 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 2) Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Food Safety Officers pursuant to an advertisement floated in the year 2015. He would further submit that the petitioners were appointed in the month of December,2015. It is contended that in the seniority list, the petitioners have been placed at Serial No.28, 32 & 36 respectively, whereas, the private respondents who were appointed in the month of March, 2016 3 have been placed above the petitioners. He would submit that such gradation list would affect the seniority as well as promotional avenues of the petitioners. He would further contend that the petitioners made representations before the respondent authorities and same have been rejected vide order dated 18.11.2021. He would pray to quash the said order. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions. He would submit that the gradation list of Food Safety Officers has been prepared according to the provisions of Rule 12 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service)Rules, 1961 (for short ‘the Rules of 1961’). He would further submit that as private respondents were above the petitioners in the merit list, therefore, they have been placed above the petitioners in the gradation list. He would contend that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) A perusal of the gradation list would make it clear that the petitioners were appointed in the year 2015, whereas, private respondents were appointed in the year 2016 but in the gradation list, their seniority has been clubbed into a single seniority list though the petitioner and private respondents were appointed from different recruitment drives, which is contrary to the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1961. 6) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, order passed by respondent No.2 dated 18.11.2021 is hereby quashed. The petitioners are granted liberty to make fresh representation(s) before respondent 4 No.2 and in turn, the said authority is directed to reconsider the claims of the petitioners with regard to their seniority in the gradation list. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7) With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha