1 WA No. 658 of 2025 2025:CGHC:45573-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 658 of 2025 1. Shiv Prasad Rajwade S/o Late Sonsai Rajwade Aged About 56 Years Posted As Head Constable At 7th Battalion, Mana Camp, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Manoj Tiwari, S/o Late Senak Tiwari, Aged About 54 Years Posted At 16th Battalion, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur 3. Bhueshwar Mishra, S/o Late B.S. Mishra Aged About 49 Years Posted As - Head Constable (Mt) At P.H.Q. Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Sheikh Mahboob Murshed, S/o Sheikh Moidul, Aged About 46 Years Posted As Head Constable, At P.H.Q. Naya Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Department Of Secretary, Home/police Secretariat, Mahandi Bhawan, Police Station And Post Rakhi, New Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarters, Near Mahanadi Bhawan, Police Station And Post Rakhi, New Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 3. Additional Director General Of Police, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces Police Head Quarters, Near Mahanadi Bhawan, Police Station And Post Rakhi, New Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.09.10 10:41:52 +0530 2 WA No. 658 of 2025 4. Inspector General Of Police, Chhattisgarh Armed Force Police Head Quarters, Near Mahanadi Bhawan, Station And Rakhi, New Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 5. Mahendra Singh Koram, S/o Gulab Singh, Aged About 49 Years Head Constable Posted At Mt Pool Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08/09/2025 1. The present writ appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ interveners in WPS No.5856 of 2025 (Mahendra Singh Koram vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) against the order dated 30/6/2025 by which the learned Single Judge passed an interim protection to the effect that the promotion order dated 27/6/2025 issued by respondent No.3 for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (MT) (Driver) be kept in abeyance till the next date of hearing. 2. Perusal of the office note shows that office has raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the present writ appeal, as the same has been preferred against the interim order. 3 WA No. 658 of 2025 3. WPS No.5856 of 2025 has been preferred by the writ petitioner (respondent No.5 herein) with the contention that the petitioner is posted as Head Constable (MT) Driver and presently posted at 20 Battalion, MT pool, Raipur. A list of eligible candidates was prepared for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector on 23-09-2022, in which the petitioner was also found eligible and placed his candidature. However, on 05-06-2025, another list of eligible candidates has been prepared in which the serial numbers of the Head Constables have been changed and other irregularities have been committed and the name of the petitioner is placed at Sr. No. 47 instead of Sr. No.30. The list of eligible candidates for promotion on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Driver) should have been prepared on the basis of earlier list dated 23-09-2022 but the ineligible candidates have been placed in the list prepared for promotion. The petitioner has made his representation against the irregular list prepared by the authorities, but without considering and deciding his representation, the department is going to issue the promotion list. learned counsel for the petitioner would also apprehended that at any time, the promotion order would be issued by the department. 4. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge by order impugned granted time to the State to file its reply and till then granted interim protection in favour of the writ petitioner, as stated supra. 4 WA No. 658 of 2025 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/interveners submits that the matter is urgent and is still pending before the learned Single Judge and because of the interim protection the rights of the concerned parties are infringed and prays for a direction for expeditious disposal of the writ petition pending before the learned Single Judge. 6. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents. 7. From bare perusal of the order impugned, it is quite vivid that proviso to Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 bars appeals against those interim orders which are totally interlocutory in nature, do not decide matters of moment and do not have an element of finality attached to them. In the case at hand the order impugned is absolutely interlocutory in nature and there is no element of finality attached to it. 8. The Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Ajay Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. in WA No. 255/2016 (decided on 25/01/2017) has held as follows :- "We therefore answer the question referred to us by holding that proviso to Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 bars 5 WA No. 658 of 2025 appeals against those interim orders which are totally interlocutory in nature, do not decide matters of moment and do not have an element of finality attached to them. Conversely, if the order vitally affects rights of the parties having bearing on the final adjudication of the case, then even though the order is interim, it cannot be termed as interlocutory order and an appeal would lie. An appeal would also lie against those orders which cannot be undone at the time of final hearing and which have an element of finality attached to them. The orders, effect of which cannot be undone at the time of final hearing, cannot be termed to be interlocutory orders and in such eventuality, an appeal would lie against such orders." 9. Applying the well settled principle of law and considering the fact that the order impugned is interlocutory in nature and do not decide matters of moment and do not have an element of finality attached to them, the present writ appeal is not maintainable against the interim order. 10. Accordingly, the present writ appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. It is needless to say that the learned Single Judge may consider to expedite the hearing of the writ petition pending before it. 6 WA No. 658 of 2025 11. Learned counsel for the appellants/ interveners are also at liberty to make a mention before the learned Single Judge to expedite the proceedings pending before him. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ Gowri