1 2025:CGHC:31859-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 463 of 2025 Manjhiram Sahare Son of Late Shri B.R. Sahare Aged About 58 Years The Then Posted As District Public Relation Officer District Public Relation Officer Kanker District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) (Now Retired) R/o In Fornt Of Maharshi School Near Shriram Residency Ward No. 14, Mangla Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Public Relation Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Under Secretary Government of Chhattisgarh Public Relation Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary Raipur (C.G.) 4. Santosh Mourya Posted as Joint Director Directorate of Public Relation Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) 5. Dhananjay Rathore Posted As Joint Director Directorate of Public Relation Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Shubhi Ruoia, Advocate on behalf of Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. For respective respondents : Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.10 16:34:43 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10 .07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant. As well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State, Ms. Shubhi Ruoia, learned counsel holding the brief of Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, learned counsel, appearing for the respective respondents on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 317 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3089 of 2018 (Manjhiram Sahare vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant participated in the exam conducted by the Public Service Commission 3 (PSC) and on the basis of marks and ranks, he has been appointed on the post of Assistant Director, Public Relation in the year 1996. He further submits that in the year 1998, the appellant was posted at Mandla and thereafter, on 14.10.2003, promoted as Deputy Director and confirmation of the promotion order was passed on 01.01.2007. On the basis of above, the appellant discharging his duties as Deputy Director. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a member of ‘Scheduled Caste’ community and belonging to ‘Mahar’ community and the Missal Bandobasht due to typographical error ‘Mahra’ word has been mentioned, but it is further submitted that according to the Schedule, the appellant belongs to ‘Scheduled Caste’. He also contended that the appellant is real brother of Dr. Mohan Lal Sahare, against whom also the complaints were made and on 28.06.2011, the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee (HPSC) has taken the decision, whereby ‘Mohanlal Sahare’ brother of appellant has been declared as member of ‘Scheduled Caste’. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the nephew of the appellant, namely, Pramendra Sahare has also filed writ petition bearing WPC No. 28 of 2016 before this Hon'ble High Court and on the basis of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 25.02.2016, the permanent caste certificate has been issued in favour of Pramendra Sahare nephew of the appellant. He also stated that the appellant was posted as Deputy Director and his next promotion is to the post of Joint Director, therefore, after completion of 05 years of service, in the year 2013, the name of the appellant was under the zone of consideration for promotion, but he has not been promoted, therefore, the appellant has 4 applied under Right to Information Act, then he came under the knowledge that as the caste of the appellant has not been verified, therefore, he has not been promoted to the post of Joint Director. 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant come under the knowledge that again the department is going to pass the order of promotion on the post of Joint Director and the appellant was having reasonable apprehension that on the basis of previous conduct of the respondents, moved an application to the department and apprized about the above mentioned fact as well as apprized with the notification published itself on 30.12.2017, whereby the General Administration Department looking to confusion regarding ‘Mahara’ and ‘Mahar’ caste, clarified that both are in the list of ‘Scheduled Caste’ and that is only difference of phonetic values. He would submit that the appellant come to utter surprise that immediately after filing of the representation, an order of promotion has been issued, whereby again the appellant has been deprived from promotion and the person junior to the appellant have been promoted. He further contended that the appellant again applied under RTI Act and he came to know that again the order of promotion has not been passed in favour of appellant on the basis of certain complaints regarding confusion of the caste and the authorities are seeking clarification from the High Power Committee. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has filed a representation along with the above clarification of State Government dated 30.12.2017, clarifying that the ‘Mahara’ and ‘Mahar’ both castes are in the list of ‘Scheduled Caste’, and requested the authorities for granting promotion to the post of Joint Director, however, 5 the representation of the appellant has also been rejected by the respondent No. 2 on 23.01.2018. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.12.2017, the appellant preferred writ petiton bearing WPS No.3089 of 2019 before this Hon’ble Court and the matter was come up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 28.06.2024 and on that day, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by holding that still the caste certificate of appellant is still under consideration before the Committee and the matter has not been decided by the Committee. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that now, if it is taken that the appellant belongs to ‘Mahara’ caste, then also the appellant cannot be deprived from getting promotion, as the said caste has also been included in the list of ‘Schedule Caste’. He would submit that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the appellant has illegally been deprived from promotion, mere on the basis of complaint regarding his caste, though the much juniors like respondents No. 4 and 5 have been promoted to the post of Joint Director, by superseding the seniority of appellant. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 28.06.2024 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. It is further submitted by the learned State counsel that the appellant cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. It is further submitted that for the purpose of promotion, various aspects have been looked into by the Departmental Promotion Committee including 6 eligibility, experience, merit, seniority and suitability. It is also submitted that the name of the appellant was earlier considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director from the post of Deputy Director in the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 27.12.2014, but the issue regarding the caste of the appellant was sub-judice before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, therefore, the name of the appellant was kept in a closed envelop. He further contended that the matter of the appellant is still pending consideration before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee, and therefore, no decision has been taken and the closed envelope has not been opened. He also contended that the name of the appellant was not considered in the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 30.12.2017 as the name of the appellant was already considered in the year 2014, and therefore, there was no occasion for the Committee to consider the name of the appellant for promotion to the post of Joint Director again. He further argued that as soon as the issue of the caste of the appellant is decided, a proper decision would be taken by the department with regard to the promotion of the appellant. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 11. It is evident that the verification of caste certificate of the appellant has been pending before the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee since 2013, as apparent from the State’s reply filed in the writ petition (Annexure R/3). 12. When questioned about the status of the High Power Caste Scrutiny 7 Committee's decision, the learned State counsel replied that the matter remains sub-judice before the Committee. This indicates that the Committee has not yet reached to the final decision, and the case is still pending consideration. 13. In view of the above, the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide on the appellant’s caste certificate within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Committee’s decision shall be communicated to the concerned authorities, who shall then proceed with the matter and take appropriate decision expeditiously upon receipt of the decision. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan