-1- 2025:CGHC:35892 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3503 of 2021 Sachin Kumar Dewangan S/o Late Sita Ram Dewangan Aged About 60 Years R/o Near Gayatri Mandir, Talapara Road, Vinayak Nagar, P. S. Civil Line, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Hasaud, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Commissioner Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Additional Commissioner Commercial Tax, Commerical Tax Building, Civil Line, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.07.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 10.06.2016 (annexure P-5) and further issue a direction to the respondent authorities to grant the promotion of -2- petitioner on the post of Commercial Tax Inspector. 10.2. That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 2) Mr. Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-III under the respondent department. He contends that similarly situated employees working as AG-III were promoted to the post of Commercial Tax Inspector, but the petitioner’s name was not considered. He further submits that in the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short, DPC) convened in the year 2003, three AG-III employees, namely Aslam Khan, Aftab Ahmed, and Anil Sahni, were not found suitable; however, in the year 2006, they were promoted to the post of Commercial Tax Inspector. 3) He would also submit that the petitioner had earlier filed WPS No. 1167 of 2013 claiming promotion to the post of Commercial Tax Inspector. The said writ petition was dismissed on 11.08.2015. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No. 464 of 2015, which was disposed of, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation, and the respondents were directed to consider it. The petitioner made a representation, which was rejected by respondent No.3 vide order dated 20.04.2016. He contends that the said order is cryptic and non-speaking in nature. It merely states that the petitioner could not qualify for the examination; thus, he prays that the order dated -3- 20.04.2016 may be quashed and a direction may be issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Commercial Tax Inspector. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State, submits that the impugned order was passed on 10.06.2016, whereas the present petition has been filed only on 05.04.2021, and there is an inordinate delay. He refers to paragraph 7 of the petition, wherein the petitioner has claimed that the order dated 10.06.2016 was not served upon him. However, the learned counsel contends that no plausible explanation has been made to justify the delay, and on this ground alone, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) He lastly submits that the petitioner could not qualify for the eligibility examination for promotion to the post of Commercial Tax Inspector, and therefore, his name was not considered. He contends that the petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 7) It is not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier filed WPS No. 1167 of 2013 seeking permission to appear in the limited competitive examination for promotion to the post of Commercial Tax Inspector, which was dismissed on 11.08.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.464 of 2015, -4- which was disposed of with the liberty to make a representation. The petitioner accordingly made a representation, which was rejected vide order dated 20.04.2016, on the ground that he did not qualify for the examination. 8) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1975) 1 SCC 152, while dealing with a similar issue in para 2, held as under:- “2. ………………...One cannot sleep over the matter and come to the Court questioning that relaxation in the year 1971. There is the further fact that even after respondents 3 and 4 were promoted as Divisional Engineers over the head of the appellant he did not come to the Court questioning it. There was a third opportunity for him to have come to the Court when respondents 2 to 4 were again promoted as Superintending Engineers over the head of the appellant. After fourteen long years because of the tempting prospect of the Chief Engineership he has come to the Court. In effect he wants to unscramble a scrambled egg. It is very difficult for the Government to consider whether any relaxation of the rules should have been made in favour of the appellant in the year 1957. The conditions that were prevalent in 1957 cannot be reproduced now. In any case as the Government had decided as a matter of policy, as they were entitled to do, not to relax the rules in favour of any except overseas scholars t will be wholly pointless to direct them to consider the appellants' case as if nothing had happened after 1957. Not only respondent 2 but also respondents 3 and 4 who were the appellant's juniors became Divisional Engineers in 1957 apparently on the ground that their merits deserved their promotion over the head of the appellant. He did not question it. Nor did he question the promotion of his juniors as Superintending Engineers over his head. He could have come to the Court on every one of these three occasions. A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his bead should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that 'here is any period of -5- limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra-ordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters.” 9) Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Jindal vs. Rajni Mahajan and Others reported in (2023) 19 SCC 533, in para 5 held as under:- “5. We are not finally opining on the issue as to whether the DPC should have been postponed or not; the ACRs only up to the year the vacancy arose should have been considered or it should be up to the date of holding of DPC. the fact remains that Respondent 1 was promoted way back in the year 2007. More than 15 years have elapsed. She was otherwise also senior to the appellant in the cadre of Lecturers and there may have been further promotions of both the parties as well as in the department where they are working. Any order passed at this stage may affect number of persons and further may result in unsettling many positions which have already settled with the lapse of time. Hence, we do not find that a case is made for interference by this Court.” 10)In the present writ petition, the petitioner has claimed promotion from AG-III to the post of Commercial Tax Inspector, but as he was not permitted to participate in the limited competitive examination, his name was not considered for promotion by the respondent authorities, and this fact has been narrated by respondent No.3 in the order dated 20.04.2016. The order impugned was passed on 20.04.2016, and this petition has been filed in 2021, and the delay part has not been explained properly. The petitioner slept over his rights for a -6- considerable period, and after a long 9 years, any order passed at this stage may affect a number of persons and further may result in unsettling many positions which have already settled with the lapse of time. 11) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim