1 Writ Petition (S) No.7557 of 2023 2025:CGHC:43064 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.7557 of 2023 1 - Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Budhau Ram Ram Aged About 35 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Peon Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School - Kundikala, Block-Raipur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Of Public Instruction Directorate Indrawati Bhawan Nava Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector - Balrampur District Balampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer - Balrampur District Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 5 - The Block Education Officer Block Rajpur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Writ Petition (S) No.7557 of 2023 Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (25.08.2025) 1. This petitioner has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for grant of promotion from the post of peon to assistant grade-3 under the handicap category within stipulated period. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire in respect of promotion on the post of Assistant grade 3 from the post of peon in the respondent department of District Balrampur from year 2018 to 2023 for kind perusal of this court. 10.3 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the present case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Peon under the handicap category in the respondent department on 09.07.2013 and has been discharging his duties diligently for over ten years. As per the seniority list of employees under the handicap category, the petitioner is the most senior employee, his name appearing at serial number 239 and his disability certificate is enclosed as Annexure P/1. In terms of the State Government’s circular dated 29.08.2018, 7% of posts are reserved for 3 Writ Petition (S) No.7557 of 2023 promotion of employees with disabilities, and such employees become eligible for promotion after completion of three years of service. Despite fulfilling all requisite conditions and being eligible, the petitioner’s case for promotion has not been considered, while similarly situated employees in the same district have been promoted without extending the benefit of reservation to eligible candidates under the handicap category. The petitioner has made multiple representations dated 30.12.2020, 16.11.2021, and 24.02.2023, and even the concerned Principal, vide letter dated 06.01.2015, recommended his case for promotion in light of the applicable circular. Furthermore, the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan) issued a communication dated 18.01.2021 by directing consideration of the petitioner’s promotion in accordance with the said circular. However, no effective action has been taken by the authorities. Though respondent No.3, vide letter dated 22.02.2023, claimed that no post of Assistant Grade-III was vacant, several such posts were subsequently filled by way of promotion, excluding the petitioner. This inaction and denial of rightful promotion is arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the provisions of law and the binding circulars issued by the State Government. Hence this petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner respectfully submits that the action of the respondent authorities in not considering his case for promotion from the post of Peon to Assistant Grade-III is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the applicable rules and 4 Writ Petition (S) No.7557 of 2023 policy. As per the prevailing promotion rules, the petitioner is fully eligible for promotion, having been appointed on 06.07.2013 under the handicap category and having completed more than the required three years of continuous service. The State Government’s circular dated 29.08.2018 explicitly provides for 7% reservation in promotions for employees with disabilities and mandates their eligibility for promotion upon completion of three years of service. Despite being the most senior employee in the handicap category as per the seniority list, the petitioner’s claim for promotion has been unjustly ignored, while other similarly situated employees in the same district have been promoted to Assistant Grade-III without extending the benefit of reservation to eligible handicapped employees. The deliberate exclusion of the petitioner from consideration, without any reason or justification, amounts to clear discrimination and is violative of the principles of equality and fair treatment guaranteed under law. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with great circumspection. 5. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee i.e. Peon on 09.07.2013 in the category of handicap. On the basis of circular dated 29.08.2018 (Annexure P/3) issued by the State Government clearly stated that after completion of three years service in respect of handicap category, the relevant promotion will be given to the employees concerned and also 5 Writ Petition (S) No.7557 of 2023 states that the there is a reservation of 7% posts form promotion of the said employees. Since the petitioner was working as peon from the year of 2013 as such they have already completed more than 12 years of service and only on the basis of non-availability of the promotional post in the Department concerned, it cannot be said that he cannot be promoted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again said that promotion is an exigency of service and whenever required the employer is having duty to consider the case of employees for grant of promotion. Stagnation is regarded to be a thing due to which the performance and efficiency of the employee is affected. Whenever in the rules there are avenues of promotion, the authorities are bound to pass appropriate orders in respect of promotion as per entitlement of the employee. In the present case also, the petitioner is entitled for promotion in all respects. The other similarly placed employees have already been promoted, but, the petitioner was not granted promotion for the reasons best known to respondent No.5. 6. The employee has the right to be considered for promotion as it is a fundamental right ensuring equal opportunity under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. In a similar judgment in Major General H.M. Singh, VSM v. Union of India 1 , the question which had arisen before their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that whether non-consideration of claim of 1 (2014) 3 SCC 670 6 Writ Petition (S) No.7557 of 2023 appellant would be discriminatory violating of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships have answered the query in affirmative while taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. Their Lordships have further held that the appellant could not be denied the promotion since the appellant had 14 months of army service remaining at the time when the vacancy in the rank of Lt. General arose on 01.01.2007. Their Lordships have held as under:" "28. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the non-consideration of the claim of the appellant would violate the fundamental rights vested in him under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The answer to the aforesaid query would be in the affirmative, subject to the condition, that the respondents were desirous of filling the vacancy of Lieutenant General, when it became available on 1.1.2007. The factual position depicted in the counter affidavit reveals, that the respondents indeed were desirous of filling up the said vacancy. In the above view of the matter, if the appellant was the senior most serving Major General eligible for consideration (which he undoubtedly was), he most definitely had the fundamental right of being considered against the above vacancy, and also the fundamental right of being promoted if he was adjudged suitable. Failing which, he would be deprived of his fundamental right of equality before the law, and equal protection of the laws, extended by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We are of the view, that it was in order to extend the benefit of the fundamental right enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, that he was allowed extension in service on two occasions, firstly by the Presidential order dated 29.2.2008, and thereafter, by a further 7 Writ Petition (S) No.7557 of 2023 Presidential order dated 30.5.2008. The above orders clearly depict, that the aforesaid extension in service was granted to the appellant for a period of three months (and for a further period of one month), or till the approval of the ACC, whichever is earlier. By the aforesaid orders, the respondents desired to treat the appellant justly, so as to enable him to acquire the honour of promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General, (in case the recommendation made in his favour by the Selection Board was approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet), stands affirmed. The action of the authorities in depriving the appellant due consideration for promotion to the rank of the Lieutenant General, would have resulted in violation of his fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such an action at the hands of the respondents would unquestionably have been arbitrary." 8. As such, in the instant case, when a employee is entitled for promotion, the concerned department is required to pass appropriate order with respect to his promotion. Considering the eligibility of the present petitioner, even if, no any post is available, the Department is directed to see/find proper opportunity of promotion and posting is required to be given. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this High court have categorically held that the promotion cannot be denied only on the ground that the promotional post is not available. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the eligibility of the petitioner and also keeping in mind the percentage fixed by the respondent department for handicap category, the concerned respondent authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for 8 Writ Petition (S) No.7557 of 2023 grant of promotion and pass appropriate order in respect of his promotion withing the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena