1 2025:CGHC:38760 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5530 of 2021  Birendra Kumar Baghel S/o Hari Ram Baghel Aged About 38 Years R/o Godhanpur, (Behind Maheshwar Temple), Ward No. 05, Ambikapur , District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. Official Address Constable No. 108, Rakshit Kendra , Baloda Bazaar , District Baloda Bazaar Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Home, Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter , Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Superintendent Of Police Koria, District Koria Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 05-08-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to order for promoting petitioner if he miss departmental exam as it happened due to the 2 State’s fault. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case. 2) Facts of the present case are that at the relevant time, petitioner was holding the post of Constable under respondent department and was posted at Rakshit Kendra, Baloda Bazaar. Applications were invited for limited competitive departmental examination for the post of Head Constable vide notification in the year 2021. First list of eligible candidates was published on 06.09.2021 wherein name of petitioner was present and the authority concerned invited claims and objections from the candidates. Thereafter, second list was published on 11.09.2021 wherein name of petitioner was removed on the ground that he does not fulfill the criteria laid down by the department for the promotion to the next higher post. In this petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to respondent authorities to consider his claim for promotion. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no reason has been assigned by the respondent authorities while deleting the name of petitioner from the list of eligible candidates published on 11.09.2021 and such action on the part of respondents is arbitrary and bad in law. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that name of petitioner was wrongly included in the first list of eligible candidates whereas in previous five years, the number of rewards are equal to the number of minor punishment imposed upon him 3 and same renders him ineligible in view of the Clause-II of Column 4 (Annexure-A) of SOP No. 25/2021 applicable on this promotion process. He prays that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6) According to Clause-II of Column 4 (Annexure-A) of SOP No. 25/2021 which is applicable on this promotion process, the candidate must have higher number of rewards than the number of minor punishments imposed on him. In the present case, number of rewards and number of minor punishments imposed on petitioner are equal, therefore, his name was not included in the second list of eligible candidates published on 11.09.2021. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.08.05 17:56:07 +0530