1 2025:CGHC:5112-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 58 of 2025 Vijay Kumar Jolhe (Scheduled Cast) S/o Late Murit Ram Jolhe, Aged About 52 Years Ex-Member Of C.G. Higher Judicial Service, R/o Vatsalya Near Balaji Temple, Anand Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 492001 ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General, High Court, Bodri, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Law, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bidya Nand Mishra and Mr. Ganesh Ram Burman, Advocates For Respondent / State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Bidya Nand Mishra and Mr. Ganesh Ram Burman, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Amrito MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.01.30 10:39:50 +0530 2 Das, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 2 / State. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 8363 of 2022 (Vijay Kumar Johle vs. High Court of Chhattisgarh and Another), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Briefs facts of the case are that the writ petitioner, belongs to Scheduled Caste category. On being qualified in the competitive examination at par with the General Candidates, the petitioner was directly appointed on probation as District Judge (Entry level) under the provisions of clause (c) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 of Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules 2006 and was posted as VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Raipur No.1123/ Confdl./ 2014/ II-2-1/ 2014/ Bilaspur, vide Order 30.10.2014. Accordingly, the writ petitioner reported on duty on 31.10.2014 at Raipur in pursuant to the said appointment letter dated 30.10.2014. The services of the writ petitioner on appointment as Additional District & Sessions Judge (Entry Level) in context to this writ petition were inter alia governed in terms with Rule 9 Sub-Rule (1), (2), (3)&(4) of the Notification vide F.No.2985/943/21-B/C.G. dated 7th April 2006 under the said Rules which inter alia provides the period of probation as 02 years. 3 On completion of the 1st year of service the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of service was generated wherein apart from the general assessment the overall grading was allotted as Grade "C" to the writ petitioner as communicated vide respected Registrar General, C.G. High Court D.O. No. 873/Confdl./2014- 15/2015 dated 30.09.2015. It was inter alia directed in the said letter of the respected Registrar General, "not to submit any representation against the advisory remarks." However, considering the direction by the Hon'ble Registrar General, not to make any representation, the writ petitioner took it as not a harmful situation but at the same time became more cautious to meet the challenges in overall improvements. Thereafter, the writ petitioner on completion of his succeeding year of service in F.Y. 2015-16, was again communicated the overall Grade-"C" by the Registrar General of this Court vide D.O. No.235/C.R.2015-2016/ Confdl./2017 dated 21.02.2017. In the said DO letter the remarks of the Hon'ble District judge were also captioned as "Integrity- Rumour heard but no confirmation....." The writ petitioner, further received an Advisory remarks excerpted from the Annual Confidential Report for the period from 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2017 vide DO No.754/C.R.2016-2017/Confdl./2018 dated 25/06/2018 by the Registrar General C.G. High Court. It was directed therein to submit representation, if any, against the same within 15 days from the 4 date of receipt of the communication as the representation received beyond the said date will not be entertained. The advisory remarks contained in the said DO letter dated 25/06/2018 of the Registrar General, High Court vis-à- vis the factual position against the same are stated subsequently below in chronology of the facts of the case below. The facts were elaborately submitted by the writ petitioner through his representation dated 10.07.2018 to the Registrar General Hon'ble High Court, Bilaspur through the District & Sessions Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur which was not accepted and he was terminated vide order dated 24.10.2018. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, the writ petitioner / appellant preferred W.P.(S) No. 8363 of 2022 (Vijay Kumar Johle vs. High Court of Chhattisgarh and Another). Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filed its reply and respondent No. 2 also filed its reply. Thereafter, the writ petitioner / appellant herein filed its rejoinder. After hearing both the parties, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. Hence this present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge set forth issue no.1 for determination at para 8 of the Judgment /Order dated 09.12.2024 as "Whether the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the count of delay and latches as delay defeats equity and disentitle the similarly situated person to 5 be granted benefits similarly?" The learned Single Judge while setting issue no.1 for determination ought not have appreciated that the writ petitioner's case lies in the writ petition categorized under 'delay and latches' and that 'delay defeats equity and disentitle the similarly situated persons to be granted benefits'. Such similarity drawn by the learned Single Judge is misplaced since writ petitioner's case is not comparable on facts and law with any other similarly placed case which may disentitle similarly situated person. Such comparison as stated in framing of Issue No.1 could only be perceived where there is any tie in service matters of more than one employee who has moved writ petition claiming relief with regard to promotion, seniority and other service benefits as compared to others in the same list. The citations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred by the learned Single Judge to fortify the contention of delay and latches as a demerit for maintainability of the writ petitioner's writ petition are not relevant to the cause of the writ petitioner since no similarity can be drawn on the facts and law discussed in the citations being entirely different from the case of the writ petitioner. There is apparent error of judgment at Para 9 of the impugned Order dated 09.12.2024 of the learned Single Judge on the effect of delay in equitable relief in reference to the relief claimed by the writ petitioner in the subject writ petition WPS 8363/2022. Further, it was construed in the impugned Order dated 09.12.2024 at Para 9 that Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot grant extraordinary relief to the person who belatedly approaches the Court. Learned Single Judge 6 in support of this view has referred to the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S. Sadashivaswamy vs. State of Tamilnadu 1975 (1) SCC 152 para 2 which is not relevant to the context of the petitioner's case as there is no similarity of facts. The learned Single Judge has drawn reference of Para 56 and 57 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tridip Kumar Dingal and others vs. State of West Bengal and Others (2009) 1 SCC 768. The reference drown from the Cited judgment is not comparable with the case of the petitioner. It would be imperative to encapsulate the SCC reported judgment from Para 53-58 and Para 62 in context to the writ petitioner's case to adjudge similarity, if any, on the grounds of delay and latches as construed in Para 10 of the impugned Order dated 09.12.2024 of the learned Single Judge which is in appeal. He submits that no similarity can be drawn with the case of the writ petitioner as construed in the impugned order dated 09.12.2024 of the learned Single Judge since the cited judgment above at para 56 to 57 considered for reference by the learned Single Judge in impugned Order dated 09.12.2024 has dealt delay and latches in filing of writ petition in the matter of 'Recruitment Process, necessary parties- impleadment in representative capacity, equitable relief in view of passage of long time, challenge against estoppel in recruitment process and lastly discretion in maintainability on delay/latches. The case of the petitioner is entirely different in facts and law. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has framed Point No.2 for decision 7 as follows (para 8 of the order dated 09.12.2024) "Whether the Order of termination dated 10.07.2018, 24.10.2018 deserves to be quashed by this Court and the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with consequential benefits?". The learned Single Judge did not consider the data analytically brought out in the petition from records on the Units earned by the writ petitioner vis-à-vis the grading in ACRs due to which serious prejudice was caused against the writ petitioner. In addition, facts on record also disclosed that the petitioner became prey of anonymous complaints not hitting him directly. Yet, the Vigilance Enquiry was done which although did not find any irregularity in petitioner's work. Despite that, it became a tool in decision making to terminate the petitioner from service without affording him opportunity of Art.311 (2). It is also very relevant to quote the Order dated 01-05-2024 of the same Hon'ble Bench of the High Court in WPS No. 2206/2017 Akanksha Bharadwaj vs. State of Chhattisgarh wherein the order passed in Ganesh Burman case with respect to the Standing Committee jurisdiction was adopted. The petitioner's case, sailing on the same boat as in case of Sri Ganesh Ram Burman, cannot be alienated to extinguish the same justice to the petitioner diverting it to unfounded grounds of delay and latches in filing of writ petition. Writ petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Others vs. C.Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747. He also submit that it would be expedient to consider that the maxim of law that "persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that 8 would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently.", is applicable in the case of the petitioner herein. Further, in support, the writ petitioner places reliance on the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another vs. G. Jaya Prasad Rao and Others (2007) 11 SCC528. He lastly submits that it is also expedient to observe that the learned Single Judge has in one hand dismissed the writ petition but, in other hand has been pleased to leave open the Point no.2 set out by him. This is the main issue to be decided under relief claimed by the writ petitioner and hence need to consider the appeal on the grounds stated above. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made be learned counsel for the appellant in the present appeal and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent herein, in which, no interference is sought for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and materials available on record. 8. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner / respondent herein after determining two points, which are as follows:- “1. Whether the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the count of delay and latches as delay defeats equity 9 and disentitle the similarly situated person to be granted benefits similarly? 2. Whether the order of termination dated 10.07.2018, 24.10.2018 deserves to be quashed by this Court and the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with consequential benefits?” 9. The learned Single Judge while determining the first issued, relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1975 (1) SCC 152, in the matter of Tridip Kumar Dingal and Others vs. State of West Bengal and Others (2009) 1 SCC 768, in the matter of State of Uttranchal and Another vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Others (2013) 12 SCC 179, in the matter of Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and in the matter of Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and Others 2024 (4) SCR 506 and has held that it is quite vivid that the petitioner who was a Judicial OfÏcer has approached the High Court after 4 years of his termination from service without any explanation for filing the petition at belated stage but claiming similar relief on the strength of judicial OfÏcer Mr. Ganesh Ram Berman who has approached the High Court without any delay from order of termination passed by the State on the recommendation of the High Court as his WPS No. is 825/2017 and he was removed from the service on 06.02.2017. Thus, the writ petitioner cannot claim that he is similar to Mr. Berman and entitled to get same relief as he has been granted by the learned Single Bench and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. Though subsequently, Mr. Ganesh 10 Ram Berman has again been terminated by the High Court therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on account of delay and latches. Learned Single Judge further held that since the petition of the writ petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches, hence Point No. 2 is not required to be dealt with. 10. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, in an intra Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 11. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet