1 2025:CGHC:31477-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 453 of 2025 1 - Gaurav Soni S/o Shri M.L.Soni, aged about 40 years, currently working as Assistant Grade III In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, (C.G.), (Petitioner No. 3 in the WP(S) No. 3963 of 2014) 2 - Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Lt Shri M.P.Sharma, aged about 39 years Currently Working As Assistant Grade III In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur (C.G.), (Petitioner No. 4) ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Law, Mahanadi Bhawan, Rakhi, New Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 1) 2 - High Court of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General, Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 2) 3 - Registrar General High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bodri, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 3) 4 - Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha Aged About 47 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 4) 5 - Shri Kamal Kishore Brokar Aged About 40 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 5) 6 - Shri Ravi Kumar Dewangan Aged About 38 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 6) ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 7 - Shri Pradeep Kumar Yadav Aged About 39 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 7) 8 - Shri Trilok Chandra Deshmukh Aged About 43 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 8) 9 - Shri Heeramani Sahu Aged About 33 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 9) 10 - Shri Laxmi Kant Thawayit Aged About 38 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 10) 11 - Shri Atul Soni Aged About 36 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 11) 12 - Smt. Dhiraj Shrivastava Aged About 41 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 12) 13 - Shri Jeewan Lal Sahu Aged About 41 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 13) 14 - Smt. Neelima Gupta Aged About 40 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 14) 15 - Shri Arvind Kumar Pandey Aged About 33 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 15) 16 - Shri Amit Kumar Kurmi Aged About 33 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 16) 17 - Shri Shri Jitendra Kashyap Aged About 40 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 17) 3 18 - Shri Neelesh Mishra Aged About 37 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 18) 19 - Shri Prahalad Kumar Sinha Aged About 31 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 19) 20 - Shri Surendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 32 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 20) 21 - Shri Ajay Laxakar Aged About 34 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 21) 22 - Shri Niranjan R. Darshan Aged About 36 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 22) 23 - Shri Hemant Kumar Patanwar Aged About 36 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 23) 24 - Shri Devendra Kumar Aged About 34 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 24) 25 - Shri Suresh Kumar Baghmare Aged About 40 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 25) 26 - Shri Anand Kumar Bhawsar Aged About 36 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 26) 27 - Shri Vimal Kumar Ratre Aged About 42 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 27) 28 - Shri Bhoj Ram Sahu Aged About 38 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 28) 4 29 - Shri Murli Singh Aged About 38 Years Working As Assistant Grade- II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 30 30 - Shri Chandrabhusan Aged About 39 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 31) 31 - Santosh Kumar Soni S/o Shri Har Prasad Soni Aged About 40 Years Currently Working As Assistant Grade-III In High Court Establishment, Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Petitioner No. 1 in the WPS No. 3963 of 2014) 32 - Braj Bihari Dubey S/o Lt Shri Kamla Prasad Dubey Aged About 40 Years Currently Working As Assistant Grade-III In High Court Establishment, Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Petitioner No. 2 in the WPS No. 3963 of 2014) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate For Respondent Nos. 29 & 30: Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09 .07 .2025 1 Heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the High Court/respondents Nos.2 & 3 on I.A. No. 02/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 88 days in filing the present appeal. 5 2 On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3 By way of present writ appeal under Sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellants, who were petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 in the writ petition, have challenged the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.3963 of 2014 (Santosh Kumar Soni & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/appellants herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4 Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the writ petitioners / appellants herein were initially appointed as peon with the High Court Establishment on 28.09.2005. The respondent No. 3 with intent to promote the class-IV employee of the High Court Establishment has initiated for promotion on the post of AG- III, the criteria for promotion has been prescribed in promotion Rule 2005 amended from time to time which provides subject to suitability for promotion as per amendment made in the Rule 2003 on 27.09.2005. The appellants have participated in the skill test of Hindi and English Typing examination. The appellants have committed mistake as such, do not stand on merit position, however, they were purely promoted on the post of AG-III in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590 vide order dated 6 24.10.2005 for a period of one year on ad hoc basis, with a condition that during this period, they have to appear in the typing test and shall have to secure minimum qualifying marks i.e. 25% marks of the aggregate marks in the typing test which may be conducted at any time after nine months or within one year from the date of issuance of promotion order. Accordingly the appellants have joined the services on ad hoc basis. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 conducted typing test and they have cleared the typing examination on 05.10.2006 which is evident from Annexure R-2/3, the appellants have obtained more than 25% of the aggregate 40 marks in the typing test, as such, they have declared as successful candidates and promoted as Assistant Grade-III in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590/- on officiating capacity for a period of two years on the establishment of the High court on 05.10.2006. Thereafter the High Court Establishment has issued gradation list on 29.09.2007 wherein the name of the appellants reflected at Sr. No. 24 and 26 at gradation list of Assistant Grade-III and the private respondents are below the appellants, thereafter in the year 2012 impugned gradation list was issued by the High Court, placing the appellants below the private respondents by removing anomaly created in the gradation list. Being aggrieved by the same appellants including 02 others i.e. respondent Nos. 31 & 32 herein have filed writ petition being WPS No. 3963 of 2024, challenging the gradation list for year 2012 communicated by respondent No. 3 vide memo dated 08.02.2013 and order of rejection of 7 representation dated 09.11.2012, 14.01.2013 for grant of seniority with effect from the date of their initial appointment i.e. on 24.10.2005. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 04.02.2025. Hence, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants / petitioner Nos.3 and 4 therein. 5 Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that the appellants were granted promotion on ad hoc basis with a condition that within a period of one year during which they have to appear in the typing test and shall have to secure minimum qualifying marks i.e. 25% marks of the aggregate marks in the typing test which will be scheduled to be conducted at any time after nine months or within one year from the date of issuance of promotion order which was duly approved by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of Chhattisgarh which is permissible under Rule 22 of the Rules, 2003 which the appellants appeared in the departmental examination and obtained more than 25% of the aggregate of 40 marks in the typing test and declared as successful candidates and thereafter, they were promoted to the post of Assistant Grade III vide order dated 05.10.2006, as such, the services rendered by the appellants as an ad hoc promottee AG III ought to have counted for the purpose of determining the seniority. He also submitted that learned Single Judge ought to have considered the settled legal position that an opportunity for a 8 hearing is a fundamental principle of natural justice, also known as audi alteram partem, which means "listen to the other side." This means that before an adverse decision is made against someone, they must be given a fair chance to present their case. This principle ensures fairness and transparency in decision- making processes. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned Single quashed and consequently, the writ petition filed by the appellants may kindly be allowed quashing the impugned memo dated 08.02.2013 and granding list of 2012 of AG-III and further direction be issued to the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to grant promotion to the appellants w.e.f. 24.10.2005 by giving appropriate seniority. 6 On the other hand, learned counsel for appearing for the State as well as private respondents oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition, in which no interference is called for. 7 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8 From perusal of the impugned order and the materials available on record it transpires that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has observed that the appellants were not appointed on ad hoc basis by substantially following the procedure of Recruitment Rules as they were unable to clear the 9 suitability test by obtaining more than 20% marks of aggregate marks, as such they are not entitled to get seniority of ad hoc period and the respondents have not committedany illegality in not granting seniority for the ad hoc period by correcting the gradation list. It has been further observed that since all the facts are known to the petitioners, as such they cannot take plea that without opportunity of hearing the gradation list has been corrected. In fact, in the present case, grant of opportunity of hearing will be merely a formality as the petitioners are unable to point out the fact projected by the High Court to be incorrect or illegal. 9 Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10 Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra