1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8267 of 2023 1 - Dr. Dinesh Kumar Jain S/o Shri Pukhraj Jain Aged About 62 Years R/o 19, Kalash Awasiya Parisar, Near Lodhipara, Old Sarkanda, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Principal Secretary School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Under Secretary School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Director Driectorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 5 - The Director State Council Of Educational Research And Training (Scert), Shanker Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 6 - The Joint Director Of Education Ghodadana, School, Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - The District Education Officer District Bilaspur (C.G.) VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 8 - The Principal Institute Of Advocate Studies In Education (Iase), Tarbahar, Link Road Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Malay Jain, Advocate For State :- Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 13.02.2026 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned order (Annexure P/1) whereby his long-standing seniority of about ten years has been arbitrarily withdrawn without granting any opportunity of hearing, resulting in denial of his promotion to the post of Principal. The petitioner was appointed as Teacher on 08.11.1985 and is working as Lecturer/Assistant Professor in IASE, Bilaspur; his seniority was corrected and fixed as on 28.01.1995 by order of this Hon’ble Court dated 10.04.2017. Despite directions dated 29.04.2022 passed in WPS No. 3053/2022 to consider his promotion within 90 days, the respondents failed to act, compelling the petitioner to file a contempt petition, whereafter the impugned order was passed. The said action is arbitrary, mala fide, violative of principles of natural justice, and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for following 3 reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the outstanding amount (deputation allowance) to the tune of Rs. 42,96,575 /- (Forty-Two Lakh Ninety- Six Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy-Five only) for the service provided by the petitioner while on deputation in the State of C.G. from the period 2013 till 2020. (The bifurcation/details of which is enclosed herein at Annexure P/9) along with the arrears & interest. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as an ad hoc Teacher on 08.11.1985 and was subsequently regularised with effect from 09.07.1986, though his initial appointment date of 08.11.1985 was erroneously not counted for seniority by the respondent authorities. Despite acquiring requisite qualifications, including M.Sc. Mathematics, and having an unblemished service record, the petitioner’s name was repeatedly omitted from promotion orders, including the Lecturer promotion order dated 22.06.1995, compelling him to make several representations and file writ petitions before this Hon’ble Court. During the pendency of WP/480/2003, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer on 23.11.2005, though much later than his juniors, and thereafter, pursuant to further litigation, his seniority as Teacher was corrected to 08.11.1985 by order dated 05.02.2015 and his 4 seniority as Lecturer was corrected to 28.01.1995 by order dated 10.04.2017, which remained undisputed and was consistently reflected in subsequent seniority lists. Despite such correction, the petitioner was denied promotion to the post of Principal, even though his juniors had already been promoted in 2009, forcing him to file WPS No. 3053/2022, wherein this Hon’ble Court, by order dated 29.04.2022, directed the respondents to process his promotion claim within 90 days. As the respondents failed to comply, the petitioner initiated Contempt Petition No. 810/2022, during the pendency of which, and immediately after the Court indicated adverse orders, the petitioner was abruptly issued a notice, subjected to hostile treatment, and thereafter, by the impugned order dated 21.09.2023, his settled seniority was arbitrarily and mala fide withdrawn without notice or hearing. The petitioner was neither served with the impugned order nor informed thereof, and only learnt about it during contempt proceedings, compelling him to challenge the said order as being arbitrary, vindictive, violative of principles of natural justice, and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, mala fide and unsustainable in law, as the respondents have illegally withdrawn the petitioner’s settled seniority of about ten years without affording him any opportunity of hearing, while considering his application for promotion, and have further held that since the petitioner allegedly no longer possesses seniority, he is not entitled to promotion to the post of Principal. It is further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of Principal with effect 5 from 06.08.2009, the date on which his juniors, namely Mrs. Anita Shrivastava and Shri Krishna Kumar Shukla, were promoted, and if the petitioner’s seniority is found to be correct, he deserves to be granted promotion with all consequential benefits from the said back date, as the delay and denial are solely attributable to the fault of the State. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s seniority was determined in compliance with the order dated 30.10.2014 passed in WPS No. 3745/2014, wherein the State was under a legal obligation to determine the petitioner’s seniority strictly in accordance with law, and even if any procedural irregularity is alleged in the order granting seniority, the same cannot be put against the petitioner by passing a stigmatic impugned order, as no fault can be attributed to the petitioner in this regard. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the impugned order is lawful and passed strictly in accordance with the governing service rules. On scrutiny of the records at the time of promotion, it was found that the petitioner’s earlier seniority fixation was erroneous. The authorities are competent to rectify such mistakes, and no vested right can arise from an illegality. It is contended that the petitioner has no fundamental right to promotion, but only a right to consideration in accordance with law. Since he did not hold the correct seniority position, denial of promotion cannot be faulted. The correction of seniority is an administrative exercise and not punitive in nature, hence principles of natural justice are not attracted in the manner alleged. It is further submitted that the earlier order dated 30.10.2014 6 only required reconsideration of seniority in accordance with law and did not grant perpetual protection to the petitioner. The impugned order being reasoned and lawful calls for no interference, and the writ petition deserves dismissal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the core dispute revolves around fixation of seniority and consequential claim for retrospective promotion. It is well settled that an employee has no vested right to promotion, but only a right to be considered in accordance with law. The material placed on record demonstrates that while considering the petitioner’s claim for promotion, the authorities undertook scrutiny of the seniority position and found the earlier fixation to be inconsistent with the applicable rules. The State is competent to rectify an apparent administrative error, and no enforceable right can accrue on the basis of a mistake. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512, has categorically held that no retrospective service benefits can be granted from a date when an employee was not borne in the cadre, as such action would disturb settled rights and is contrary to service jurisprudence and it was held thus:- “19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a 7 vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das, wherein it was observed as follows: “18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai10 where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab12, a three-Judge Bench observed thus: 41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below: ‘4……. There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent-writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 8 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent- writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.’ 42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her's fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27: ‘Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right 22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the ‘State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws’. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that: ‘there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State’. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense “equality of opportunity” in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word “employment” being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16 (1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, 9 a fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be “considered” for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion, which is his personal right. “Promotion” based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1). * * * 27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.13, and followed in Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana14, and other cases, if it is intended to lay down that the right guaranteed to employees for being “considered” for promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have already stated earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to be “considered” for promotion is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.], right from 1950.’ “20. In State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, it was held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others. The same view was reiterated in Keshav 10 Chandra Joshi v. Union of India16, where it was held that when a quota is provided for, then the seniority of the employee would be reckoned from the date when the vacancy arises in the quota and not from any anterior date of promotion or subsequent date of confirmation. The said view was restated in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P., in the following words: ‘37. We are also of the view that no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre so as to adversely affect the direct recruits appointed validly in the meantime, as decided by this Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India held that when promotion is outside the quota, seniority would be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous promotion would be regular only from the date of the vacancy within the quota and seniority shall be counted from that date and not from the date of his earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order to do justice to the promotes, it would not be proper to do injustice to the direct recruits…… 38. This Court has consistently held that no retrospective promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on retrospective basis from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre particularly when this would adversely affect the direct recruits who have been appointed validity in the meantime.” (emphasis supplied) 20. In the instant case, it is evident that while respondent No. 1 was recommended for promotion before his retirement, he could not 11 assume the duties of the Chief Scientific Officer. Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, clearly stipulates that an employee must assume the responsibilities of a higher post to draw the corresponding pay, thus, preventing posthumous or retrospective promotions in the absence of an enabling provision.” 9. The correction of seniority, in the facts of the present case, cannot be said to be punitive in nature. It is essentially an administrative exercise undertaken while examining eligibility for promotion. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the impugned action suffers from mala fides or patent arbitrariness warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mere long continuance of an erroneous seniority does not create an indefeasible right to claim retrospective promotion. 10. Insofar as the prayer seeking promotion from 06.08.2009 is concerned, the petitioner has admittedly superannuated. Grant of retrospective promotion after retirement is an exceptional relief and can be ordered only when a clear legal right is established and denial is found to be wholly illegal. In the present case, since the very foundation of the claim, namely seniority, is under dispute and has been corrected by the competent authority, no direction for back-dated promotion with consequential benefits can be issued in writ jurisdiction. 11. Consequently, in the facts and circumstances of this case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition, being devoid of 12 merit, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha