1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 954 of 2025 Bhartesh Netam S/o Shri Sainik Lal Netam Aged About 36 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Grade I I At Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - The Municipal Corporation Raipur Through Its Commissioner Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Municipal Corporation, Raipur Through Its Departmental Promotion Committee, Address- Hanuman Vatika, Near Aanchhi, Talab, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Banshankar Gupta S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Gupta Presently Posted As Assistant Account Officer At Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Anand Kumar Tamrakar S/o Ganesh Ram Tamrakar Presently Posted As Assistant Account Officer At Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Rajkumar Kurre S/o Shri Dharmendra Kumar Presently Posted As Assistant Account Officer At Office Of Municipal Corporation, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 to 5 : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate 2 HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU Order on Board 16/04/2026 1. Petitioner aggrieved with his non-consideration of his name for promotion on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer from the post of Assistant Grade II by the Departmental Promotion Committee has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs; “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs/ direction/directions, in the nature of certiorari to set- aside the impugned promotion order dated 17.01.2025 with respect to respondent no. 3 to 5 (Annexure-P/1). 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs/ direction/directions, in the nature of certiorari and direct the respondent/Municipal Corporation to grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Account Officer and kindly may further issued direction to consider the case of petitioner on the post of Assistant Account Officer. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is holding the post of AG-II and have completed 5 years of service on the said post. He is also having the qualification of the Accounts Training from the Government Accounts Training School. Service of the petitioner is governed by the C.G. Municipal Corporation (Appointment and Terms and Conditions of Officers and Employees) Rules 2018. Referring to Rule 11 of the rules, it is submitted that promotion of employees of Municipal Corporation is to be considered according to Schedule IV appended to Rule 11. He contended that in the rules of 2018, initially there was no provision for promotion of the Assistant Grade II to the 3 post of Assistant Accounts Officer. It was subsequently brought in by way of amendment dated 25.01.2021, making amendment to Serial No. 18 of Schedule IV and in Column No. 3, for the word and symbols ‘Accountant/Grade II’ has been inserted. Accordingly, petitioner being the Assistant Grade II with the qualification of the Accounts Training became eligible for his promotion on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. It is also submission of counsel for the petitioner that as petitioner being the Accounts Trained wants to join the accounts wing and therefore have forego his promotion in the year 2024 to the post of Assistant Grade-I. Subsequent to the proceedings of the promotion of the Assistant Grade-I, the respondent department has initiated the proceedings for promotion of the Accountant/ AG-II to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, however, the DPC which was convened on 14.01.2025 have not considered the name of the petitioners for promotion though according to the Rules of 2018, he was eligible. The private respondents who have been promoted vide Order dated 17.01.2025 are junior to the petitioner as they have joined services after the petitioner. The non-consideration of the name of the petitioner for promotion is in contravention of the Rules of 20118 and therefore, the DPC proceedings is to be set aside. Consequently, the order of promotion be quashed. 3. Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2 would vehemently oppose the submission of counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the date of the initiation of the proceedings for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer petitioner was not eligible for consideration as he was not possessed with the requisite qualification as required under the rules. He also contended that 4 petitioner has also not having requisite experience on the post with accounts training. Referring to Schedule IV of rules 2018, he would submit that it is not in dispute that by way of amendment along with the accountant, the AG-II is also been mentioned in the feeder cadre, however, the 5 years of experience subject to the accountant/ AG-II are having 5 years of work experience which means the works experience of the employees like petitioner (AG-II) should have the works experience of 5 years after Accounts Training Certificate. He also submits that according to the documents enclosed along with the writ petition, it is apparent that petitioner has obtained the qualification of the Accounts Training Certificate only on 08.09.2022 and on the date of the consideration of the names of the employees for promotion on 14.01.2025 petitioner has not completed 5 years after obtaining the certificate of accounts training. 4. Counsel for the respondent No. 3 to 5 would oppose the submission while adopting the argument of respondent No. 1 and 2 and would submit that petitioner is not entitled for consideration of the promotion for one more reason that as the petitioner has forego his right of consideration for promotion on the post of AG-1 in the year 2024 and therefore, according to the circular issued by the State Government dated 06.09.2003, the employee would not be considered for promotion for a period of one year from the date of his foregoing the earlier promotion. He also submits that seniority of the employees is to be considered from the date of obtaining the qualification. 5. To appreciate the rival submission of counsel for the parties, I find it appropriate to first refer to the rules by which services of the petitioner is governed. Undisputedly, the petitioner is an employee of the 5 Municipal Corporation, Raipur. State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section 1 of Section 58 read with Section 433 of the C.G. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 have modified the rules named as C.G. Municipal Corporation (Appointment and Terms and Conditions of Services of Officers and Employees) Rules 2018. The said rules were notified in gazette on 16.01.2018. Rule 11 of Rules 2018 envisages for promotion. Relevant portion of the rules is extracted below for ready reference; 11. Promotion. — (1) Subject to the provisions contained in rule 4, the Committee specified in Schedule-IV shall select candidates for promotion to such posts as are specified in column (2) of Schedule-IV. (2) When a post meant to be filled through promotion falls vacant, and in the opinion of the appointing authority it is necessary in the interest of the Corporation to fill up the vacant post, then the Commissioner shall according to column (3) of Schedule-IV prepare a seniority list of officers /employees, their character record, details of awards/punishment given to such employees and present it to the Committee specified in Schedule -IV. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-rule (4), the Committee shall consider the case of all such employees who have as on the first day of January of that year, completed the number of years of service (whether on deputation or on original posting) on the posts specified in column (3) of Schedule-Ill to which the promotion is to be made, as specified in column (4) of Schedule-IV and who according to the provisions contained in sub-rule (4) deserve consideration: Provided, that a junior person shall not get precedence over his senior only on the ground that he has completed the required length of service. (4) --------------------- (5) The Committee shall prepare a list of persons who fulfill the conditions laid down in sub-rule (3) and who in the opinion of the Committee are suitable for promotion. This list shall be sufficient to fill the vacancies expected to be created due to retirement and promotion for a period of one year from the date of preparation of the selection list. (6) Name of the persons included in the list shall be in the order of seniority for posts specified in column (3) of Schedule-IV, (7) -----------------------------” 6 6. Schedule IV under Rule 11 provides for the post to which promotion will be made and minimum years of experience in post at Column No. 3 for promotion to post in Column No. 2. In serial No. 4 it mentions about the promotion to the post of Assistant Office Superintendent / Assistant Grade I to be filled up by way of promotion from the post of Assistant Grade II / Accountant / Record Keeper. Serial No. 18 provides for the promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer from the post of Accountant. In Column No. 3 of Serial No. 18 of Schedule IV the word ‘Accountant’ was substituted by the words ‘Accountant / Assistant Grade II (if he has completed training in accounts)’. By way of amendment brought in the year 2021, now the Assistant Grade-II having completed training in accounts is also a feeder cadre post for promotion on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer subject to his completion of five years of work experience. The bare reading of Column No. 4 under Schedule IV, it is explicit clear that the experience for the purpose of experience minimum years of service in the post at Column No. (3) is necessary. 7. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is the claim of the petitioner that though the petitioner is also holding the post of Assistant Grade-II, feeder cadre post for promotion on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, is having requisite experience of more than 5 years and accounts trained. However, his name was not considered by Departmental Promotion Committee and further that the private respondent No. 3 to 5 who came in, thereafter petitioner has been considered for promotion. 7 8. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2 submitted that petitioner was not eligible for consideration of his name for promotion on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer as petitioner has not completed 5 years after obtaining the certificate of accounts training. In its reply respondent No. 1 and 2 has also pleaded that the petitioner is holding the post of Assistant Grade II which is a different cadre that of Accountant and therefore, the seniority / gradation list is separately prepared. His contention is that interse seniority cannot be assessed between the employees of two difference cadres. He submits that the promotion on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer is made from the post of Accountant, which is a distinct cadre. It is also contention that subsequent amendment brought in on 25.01.2025 inserting Assistant Grade II in column No. 3 of Serial No. 18 under Schedule IV did not merge or unite the two cadres. The amendment only extended eligibility subject to seniority. 9. The provisions of Rule 2018 governing the field is unambiguous and clear under the rules of 2018 in Schedule IV along with Assistant Grade-II, Accountant and Record Keeper has also been mentioned in Column No. 13 of Schedule IV to be the feeder cadre post for promotion on the post of Assistant Officer Superintendent / Assistant Grade I, however, for promotion on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer at the time of incorporation of the rules, the feeder cadre post was only Accountant. In the year 2021, by way of amendment Assistant Grade II if have completed training in accounts is also inserted in the feeder cadre for promotion on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer along with the Accountant. The 5 years of work experience as mentioned in Column No. 4 of Schedule IV has to be read as 8 specifically mentioning under Column 4 for minimum years of service in post. The service in post means the service as Accountant or Assistant Grade-II. 10. Pleadings made in reply by respondent No. 1 and 2 and the submissions made by counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2 that Assistant Grade-II have completed accounts training means the experience of Assistant Grade-II with the Accounts Training of five years will also be applied to have completed Accounts Training, this submission of counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2 in the opinion of this Court is misplaced. The work experience according to Schedule IV is five years of service on the post as mentioned therein, whereas, accounts training is a qualification which makes eligible the Assistant Grade-II to consider his name for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. Work experience and qualification of accounts training are two distinct things and it cannot be merged in, to say that the Assistant Grade-II those have obtained the qualification/ certificate of accounts training and then also he has to complete 5 years thereafter. 11. The submission made by learned counsel for respondent No. 3 to 5 that as the petitioner had forgo his promotion on the post of Assistant Grade I and therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered for promotion again within one year, in view of the circular issued by the State Government dated 06.09.2003 in the opinion of this Court is not sustainable more-so, when this stand is not taken by the respondent No.1. Further, the petitioner has made request to the employer that he be not considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Grade-I, he has not made a request to the respondent authorities that he be not 9 promoted on any post according to the circular. If an employees refuses to get promotion on a particular post then he will not be considered for promotion for that particular post to which he refuses and if he is also eligible for promotion to some other post and subsequent to refusing of promotion, proceeding is initiated to fill other post by promotion then the consideration of that employee will be for the first time. In the case at hand, as discussed above, petitioner may not be interested for promotion to AG-I may be because he is accounts trained. 12. When the provisions under the rules are specific, unambiguous and clear then it has to be read as it is. For the foregoing discussion, the order of promotion issued based on the recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 17.01.2025 promoting the private respondents without considering candidature of AG-II Accounts Trained is not sustainable. Accordingly, it is quashed. Respondent No. 1 and 2 are directed to conduct review DPC considering the candidature of all the eligible candidates holding the post of Accountant and Assistant Grade-II having completed the accounts training a fresh, in accordance with law. The respondent authorities thereafter based on the recommendation made by the Review DPC shall pass an order of promotion on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. 13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE Saurabh