1 2025:CGHC:38385 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4850 of 2021 • Anil Sinha S/o Shri T. R. Sinha Aged About 52 Years Presently Working As Deputy Secretary, Law And Legislative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, State Of Chhattisgarh, Law And Legislative Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Jha and Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocates For Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to this case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set aside the condition at para 2 and 3 of the promotion order dated 17.05.2021 (Annexure P/3) being unconstitutional, in the interest of justice. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.07 19:58:45 +0530 2 10.3 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition. 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was posted as an Under Secretary in the Law and Legislative Affairs Department. He belongs to the other backward class. He was within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary. The Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'DPC') for promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary was convened in the year 2012, wherein Annual Confidential Report (s) (for short 'ACR or ACRs') of 05 years of the petitioner were considered. The ACR of the petitioner for the Year 2007 was 'Very Good'; Year 2008 was 'Good', Year 2009 was 'Very Good'; Year 2010 was 'Very Good' and ACR of the Year 2011 was not placed, whereas the ACR of 2012 was 'Good' and awarded grades were A, C, A, B and B. It is the further case of the petitioner that he should have been awarded a total of 13 marks according to the schedule, but the Committee awarded him only 11 marks against the ACRs. The petitioner made a representation with a prayer to convene a review DPC, but it was not considered. The petitioner filed WPS No. 96/2021, and it was disposed of vide order dated 25.01.2021. The respondents were directed to decide the pending representation of the petitioner in accordance with the law, preferably within a period of 90 days. In compliance with the order dated 25.01.2021, a review DPC was convened on 11.05.2021 comprising the Chief Secretary (Chairman), Principal Secretary Law (Member), Manish Kumar Thakur- Additional Secretary (Law) and Umesh Kumar Katiya-Additional 3 Secretary (Law), who were the members of the Committee. The petitioner was found suitable for promotion, and his name was accordingly recommended for promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary. The note-sheet was approved by the Law Minister on 12.05.2021, and on 13.05.2021, it was also approved for the issuance of the promotion order. The promotion order was issued on 17.05.2021. The petitioner has pleaded that conditions No. 2 and 3 mentioned in the order of promotion are arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and are unwarranted and uncalled for. In condition No. 2, it is stated that the promotion of the petitioner dated 17.05.2021 would be subject to the final decision of the objection raised with regard to his earlier promotion. It is further stated that if the objection is decided against the petitioner, the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Secretary would be canceled automatically. Condition No. 3 states that the decision with regard to the grant of annual increment would be taken immediately after the office of the Accountant General, Raipur decides the issue of excess payment of Rs.10,84,868/- The further case of the petitioner is that a representation was made for deletion of conditions No. 2 and 3 on 09.06.2021, and it was rejected vide order dated 23.07.2021. 3. Mr. T.K. Jha and Mr. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would argue that a review DPC was concluded on 12.05.2021 after the approval of the Law Minister. It is further argued that initially, conditions No. 2 and 3 were not part of the order, and subsequently, those conditions were inserted. It is also argued that both conditions are against the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that the details of the pending cases against the petitioner 4 were available with the department, even though the decision was taken to promote the petitioner in review DPC and thus the DPC ignored the pending inquiries despite its knowledge. It is also contended that the decision to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Secretary was approved by the Law Minister as well as the Secretary of the Department; therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent to insert such vague and unwarranted conditions. It is prayed that conditions No. 2 and 3 of the promotion order dated 17.05.2021 may be quashed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent, would submit that the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary from the post of Under Secretary was considered in the DPC convened in the year 2012, but he was found fit. He would argue that pursuant to the order passed in WPS No. 96/2021, a review DPC was convened on 11.05.2021. The DPC recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion on 11.05.2021, and the order of promotion was issued on 17.05.2021. He would contend that during the course of the meeting of the DPC, the objection of the Accountant General was brought to the notice of the Committee, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner was wrongly promoted to the post of Under Secretary. There was an order of recovery to the tune of Rs.10,84,868/- also. He would argue that in light of the objections raised by the office of Accountant General, the authorities took a decision to insert conditions No. 2 and 3 in the order of promotion to avoid the dispute. He would further argue that the petitioner accepted the promotion order and joined his service. He would also argue that the objections were duly explained to the 5 petitioner. He would state that there are serious allegations with regard to the financial irregularities, and in this regard, a letter was issued by the office of the Accountant General to the Additional Secretary, Law and Legislative Department on 08.09.2016. He would further state that the matter against the petitioner is still pending consideration before the authority concerned. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. The review DPC was convened for the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Under Secretary to Deputy Secretary pursuant to the order passed in WPS No. 96/2021 dated 25.01.2021. The authorities concerned were directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner in accordance with the law within a period of 90 days. The note-sheet placed on record by the petitioner would show that the Committee of 04 members was constituted to consider the claim of the petitioner. The Chairman of the Committee was the Chief Secretary, whereas the Principal Secretary (Law), Senior Additional Secretary and Additional Secretary (Law) were members. The ACRs of the petitioner for the years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012 were taken into consideration. 7. It is observed by the Committee that in the year 2012, the petitioner was awarded 11 marks, and he was not found suitable for promotion. In the review DPC conducted in the year 2014, the petitioner was not found fit for promotion. The Committee awarded 13 marks to the petitioner against the ACRs of 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012. The details are reproduced herein below:- 6 o"kZ Vhdk XkzfMax vad 2007 Ckgqr vPNk , 3 2008 vPNk ch 2 2009 Ckgqr vPNk , 3 2010 Ckgqr vPNk , 3 2011 Izkfrosnu vafdr ugha 2012 vPNk ch 2 dqy vad 13 The petitioner was found suitable for promotion, and his name was recommended for promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary. The recommendation made by the Committee was approved by the Principal Secretary (Law) and the concerned Minister on 12.05.2021. 8. The Committee further considered letters issued by the office of Accountant General dated 20.04.2016 with regard to the petitioner’s illegal promotion to the post of Section Officer, and further the order of recovery to the tune of Rs.10,84,868/-. It is also observed that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the post of Section Officer. A letter was issued by the office of the Accountant General on 17.03.2021 in this regard, and the matter is still pending consideration. In these circumstances, the petitioner was temporarily promoted to the post of Deputy Secretary with a further condition that if any decision affecting his earlier promotion is taken by the office of the Accountant General, the promotion granted to the petitioner to the post of Deputy Secretary would be canceled automatically. In para-3, it is stated that the decision with regard to the excess payment to the tune of Rs.10,84,868/- shall remain stayed till the decision is taken by the office of the Accountant General. The note-sheet was signed by the 7 members of DPC, and thereafter, the order of promotion was issued, stipulating the above-stated conditions. 9. The documents annexed to the petition would show that the order of promotion was issued on 17.05.2021, and the petitioner had joined the promoted post without raising any objection. A representation was made by the petitioner on 09.06.2021 assailing conditions No. 2 and 3 of the order of promotion. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 23.07.2021. 10. Admittedly, when the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary was considered by the DPC, two matters were pending consideration before the office of the Accountant General, Raipur, the first matter relates to the wrong promotion granted to the petitioner to the post of Section Officer. The note-sheet would show that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Section Officer contrary to the service rules, whereas the second matter relates to the recovery of Rs.10,84,868/-. It appears that the petitioner failed to disclose the above fact before the DPC. Initially, a notice was issued by the office of the Accountant General in the year 2016 and thereafter on 08.02.2021, and therefore, the Committee considered it necessary to insert conditions No. 2 and 3 in the order of promotion. 11. Note-sheet filed by the petitioner would show that conditions No. 2 and 3 were part of the note-sheet of the review DPC, and the decision to insert conditions was approved unanimously by the Committee. The petitioner accepted the order of promotion and joined his service on the post of Deputy Secretary without raising any objection at the time of joining. 8 12. It is a well-settled principle of law that a person cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. On one hand, the petitioner accepted the order of promotion and, after accepting the order of promotion, moved a representation to quash conditions No. 2 and 3. The petitioner has to establish in the pending inquiry that he was promoted to the post of Section Officer strictly in accordance with the law, and in another matter, that there was no misappropriation of public funds. The pending inquiries against the petitioner cannot be quashed indirectly by allowing this petition, whereas no such prayer has been made. 13. It has not been brought on record by the State in their reply as to why the name of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary, when his earlier promotion to the post of Section Officer was under scrutiny, and an order of recovery was also issued, and both matters were within the knowledge of the DPC. 14. Considering the facts discussed above, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent authorities. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti