1 2025:CGHC:44667 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 360 of 2019 Tarachand Ratnakar S/o Shri S. P. Ratnakar Aged About 47 Years Posted As Assistant Internal Audit Officer Subordinate Account Service In The Office Of Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension, New Composite Building Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary Finance Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atalnagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Trasury Account And Pension, Indrawati Bhawan, Block -I, First Floor, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Kalpana Hedau Account Officer, Chhattisgarh State Police Accountability Authority Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For Respondents 1& 2/State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 02.9.2025 1. The petitioner has preferred instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the order dated 3.4.2018 (Annexure- P/1) issued by respondent No.2 and further be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to place the petitioner at BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.09.03 18:20:50 +0530 2 appropriate place in the seniority list and to consider his case for promotion to next higher post from the date of promotion of respondent No.3 with all consequential benefit i.e. 8.12.2017 in the ends of justice. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favour of the petitioner, including cost.” 2. Facts of the case as projected by the petitioner in nutshell are that, he was appointed as Assistant Grade-III (AG-III) in the department of Women and Child Development in the State of Madhya Pradesh in the year 1999. In the year 2010, respondent No.2 conducted examination of “Chhattisgarh Subordinate Accounts Services Cadre” (SAS) and the petitioner participated in the aforesaid examination. Respondent No.3 was employee of the O/o. Directorate of Treasury, Accounts and Pension Department. She also participated in the said examination. The petitioner and respondent No.3 passed the said examinations and their appointment orders were issued vide Order dated 18.3.2011 (Annexure-P/5) and Order dated 18.3.2011 (Annexure-P/4) respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner joined in the Finance Department and respondent No.3 also joined in the said department. Gradation List as on 01.4.2012 was prepared by the respondent department, in which, name of the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.176 and name of respondent No.3 was placed at Sl. No.186. Subsequently in the gradation list issued by the respondent department on 01.4.2015 (Annexure- P/7) name of the petitioner was kept at Sl. No.167 and name of respondent No.3 was kept at Sl. No.160. Gradation of the petitioner was reduced against respondent No.3 without any cogent reason. Representation filed by the petitioner in this regard was rejected by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-P/1 dated 03.4.2018, which give rise to filing of instant petition. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that appointment orders of the petitioner (Annexure-P/5) and respondent No.3 (Annexure-P/4) were issued on the same date i.e. on 18.3.2011. But as per the merit list dated 23.7.2010 (Annexure-P/3) issued with regard to candidates who were from other departments and merit list dated 23.7.2010 (Annexure-D/1) issued with regard to departmental candidates who participated in the same examination, the petitioner had obtained total 66.2% marks and respondent No.3 obtained 53.4% marks in the examination, therefore, earlier in the gradation list dated 01.4.2012 issued in the year 2012, name of the petitioner was placed above respondent No.3, but without any reason, his gradation was reduced and kept below the name of respondent No.3 in the subsequent gradatuion list issued in the year 2015. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instant petition may be allowed by setting aside impugned order and the respondent authorities may be directed to maintain gradation list as on 01.4.2012. 4. Respondent/State has filed reply. Learned State counsel referring to its reply would submit that the petitioner was working as AG-II in the Office of ‘Integrated Child Development Project’, Korba under the Women & Child Development Department, whereas respondent No.3 had been working as AG-II in the District Treasury Office, Rajnandgaon under the Directorate of Treasury, Accounts and Pension. The petitioner and respondent No.3 were participated in the SAS examination. Though the petitioner had got more marks than respondent No.3, despite that he is not entitled to get seniority above respondent No.3 as per Rule 12(1)(g) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of services), Rules, 1961 (for short ‘the Rules 1961’). He further submits that even otherwise, as per Clause 15 of the Departmental Examination Rules, 1996, three separate 4 merit lists would be prepared on the basis of result of the departmental examination Part II, which are as under:- (1) List for the Sub Ordinate Officers appointed on probation; (2) List for the employees of other departments who entered in subordinate Services through ‘Varan’; (3) List for the employees of the subordinate offices of the Directorates who comes under promotion under the cadre and possessing eligibility for recruitment. 5. In view of the above provision, the petitioner has been treated as direct recruitee for the Directorate of Treasury, Accounts and Pension and while preparing gradation list taking into above provision, the petitioner has been placed below respondent No.3. Learned State counsel further submits that name of the petitioner was subsequently kept below respondent No.3 in gradation list dated 01.4.2015 on the basis of Rule 12(1)(g) of the Rules 1961. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get relief sought for by him . 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Undisputedly, the petitioner was employee of ‘Integrated Child Development Project’, Korba under the Women & Child Development Department and respondent No.3 was working as Asst. Grade-II in the O/o. District Treasury, Rajnandgaon under the Directorate of Treasury, Accounts and Pension. The petitioner and respondent No.3 both were participated in the SAS examination held in the year 2010 and both passed said examination, thereafter their separate appointment orders (Annexure-P/4 & P/5) were issued on 18.3.2011. 5 8. Since the petitioner was the employee of different department and respondent No.3 was the employee of Finance Department, therefore, three merit lists were prepared as per Clause 15 of the Departmental Examination Rules, 1996. Though the petitioner had obtained higher marks than respondent No.3, but as per Rule 12(1)(g) of the Rules 1961, if orders of direct recruitment and promotion are issued on the same date, then promotee persons enblock be treated as senior to direct recruitee. 9. Rule 12(1)(g) of the Rules, 1961 reads thus:- 12. Seniority.- The seniority of the members of a service or a distinct branch or gropu of posts of that service shall be determined in accordance with the following principles, viz.- (1) Seniority of Direct Recruits and Promotees.- (a) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (g) If orders of direct recruitment and promotion are issued on the same date, promotee persons enblock shall be treated as senior to the direct recruitees. 10. As has been stated in the preceding paragraphs, though the petitioner has obtained higher marks than respondent No.3, but getting higher marks would not decide seniority of the candidates, rather seniority between the direct recruitee and the promotee persons would be decided as per Rule 12(1)(g) of the Rules 1961 and since respondent No.3 was a departmental promotee person, therefore, in the gradation list issued on 01.4.2015, name of respondent No.3 has rightly been placed above the name of the petitioner at Sl. No.160 from 186 and name of the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.167 from 176. 6 11. It seems that earlier in the gradation list issued on 01.4.2012, name of the petitioner was placed above respondent No.3 on the basis of more marks obtained by him than respondent No.3, but in the subsequent gradation list issued on 01.4.2015, name of the petitioner was kept below respondent No.3 in the light of Rule 12(1)(g) of the Rules 1961. Earlier keeping the petitioner above respondent No.3 in the gradation list did not entitle him to get seniority above respondent No.3 as factum of seniority is determined as per the Rule 12(1)(g) of the Rules 1961 and applying the aforesaid rule, the gradation list was changed, as such, representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected vide Annexure-P/1. 12. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 03.4.2018 passed by respondent No.2. Hence, the petition being sans substratum, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini