1 2025:CGHC:45484-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 630 of 2025 Kunwar Singh Angare S/o Late Derha Ram Angare Aged About 61 Years Qtr. No. I-4/3, 27 Kholi, Vikas Nagar, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line District Bilaspur C.G. Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - High Court pf Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General Bodri Bilaspur C.G. 2 - The Registrar General High Court of C.G. Bodri, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Dev Sharan Dilliwar Presently Posted As Assistant Registrar, High Court Establishment, Bodri, Bilaspur C.G. 4 - Sunil Kumar Verma Presently Posted As Assistant Registrar, High Court Establishment, Bodri, Bilaspur C.G. 5 - Pramod Kumar Pathak Working As Section Officer (At Present Suspended), High Court Establishment, Village Bodri, Police Station Chakarbhta Bilaspur C.G. 6 - Ram Kumar Sahu Presently Working As Assistant Registrar, High Court Establishment, Village Bodri, Police Station Chakarbhata Bilaspur C.G. 7 - Vivek Shrivastava Presently Posted As Assistant Registrar, High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur C.G 8 - Narottam Sahu Presently Posted As Section Officer, High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur C.G ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.09.08 17:39:09 +0530 2 9 - Manoranjan Kumar Sinha The Then Working As Assistant Grade 1, High Court Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur C.G 10 - Mini Rajan Presently Working As Section Officer, High Court Establishment Village Bodri, Police Station Chakarbhata, Bilaspur C.G ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate For Respondents-High Court of Chhattisgarh : Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.09 .2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 53 days in preferring the appeal. 2. For the grounds assigned in the application (I.A. No.01), the same is allowed. Delay of 53 days in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner against the order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.1029 of 2013, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 3 5. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that in an identical matter, this Court had dismissed Writ Appeal No.530 of 2025 vide order dated 28.07.2025 observing as follows : “9. It is not disputed that the services of the appellant/writ petitioner was absorbed in the Establishment of the High Court on the post of Assistant Grade III vide order dated 28.04.2004 subject to the condition that he would submit Hindi or English Typing pass certificate and his seniority will be counted in the Establishment w.e.f. the date of his passing examination of English or Hindi Typing. In compliance of the order passed by a Division Bench of this High Court, the gradation list was corrected and the past service of the petitioner was also considered. However, since the essential qualification for appointment as AG-III as per the Chhattisgarh High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2003, is graduate and knowledge of English and Hindi typing with proof and one year Diploma Courses from ITI or any equivalent board/University, as such, the petitioner was granted seniority from the date 4 he acquired the requisite qualification for appointment. It appears that the appellant herein acquired the qualification of typing only on 07.02.2005. Even the order dated 29.09.2005 by which he was absorbed w.e.f. the date he passed the typing examination, has also not been challenged. 10. There is no disagreement with respect to the fact that passing typing examination was an essential qualification for appointment on the post of AG-III which the appellant did not possessed, however, the High Court, taking a lenient view, allowed him to continue on deputation subject to the condition of passing typing examination before expiry of the deputation period vide order dated 29.04.2004 and the date on which the appellant passed the said examination, he was granted the seniority. The appellant has also not challenged the order dated 28.04.2004 by which it was clarified that their seniority would be counted from the date he passes English/Hindi Typing. The note sheet (Annexure P/4 to the writ petition) itself indicates that some employees did not had 5 the essential qualification but looking to the emergent situation, as the High Court was at its infancy, to meet the requirement of manpower, relaxation was granted under Rule 21 of the Rules of 1996. However, that relaxation cannot be construed to be giving a go-bye to the essential requirement for ever but the employees who lacked essential qualification were allowed to be appointed on deputation basis for a period of two years which is evident from the order dated 22.02.2001 (Annexure P/5 to the writ petition). The appellant alongwith other two employees namely Sanjay Kumar Sinha and Kunwar Singh Angare were also absorbed on the Establishment of the High Court subject to the condition that they will have to pass Hindi or English typing examination before the expiry of term of their deputation and it was specifically mentioned that their seniority shall be counted on the Establishment of the High Court w.e.f date of their passing the English/Hindi examination. The said order dated 28.04.2004 has never been put to challenge by the appellant herein. 6 11. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that since the appellant did not had the essential qualification for appointment on the post of AG-III, therefore, he cannot claim benefit of seniority after absorption invoking Rule 12(2)(c) of the Rules of 1961 as the Rules clearly provide that the candidate who is holding same or equivalent grade on regular basis in his parent department on absorption is entitled to get seniority from the period he was on deputation. 12. We fully concur with the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition and as such, this appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of Writ Appeal No.530 of 2025, this appeal may also be disposed off in the same terms. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to Writ Appeal No.530 of 2025, this Court deems it 7 appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in Writ Appeal No.530 of 2025. 7. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 28.07.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No.530 of 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu