1 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8453 of 2022 Order Reserved on 13.2.2025 Order Passed on 09.5.2025 1 - Chandrakant Pandey S/o Shri Kamal Prasad Pandey Aged About 34 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Grade I In The Department Of Culture, Nava Raipur, R/o Sector 29 Bunglow No. 32, Mig Room No. 101, Nava Raipur,atal Nagar Nava Raiipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Mirza Muskan Baig Presently Posted As Assistant Grade I, In The Animal Husbandry Department Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Lokeshwar Kumar Sahu Presently Posted As Assistant Grade I, In The General Administration Department (Accounts), Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Lalit Kumar Paul Presently Posted As Assistant Grade I In The Department Of Public Health Engineering, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.05.18 13:57:19 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Shri Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 & 2 : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.08.2022, whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Department in compliance with this Court's order dated 15.12.2021 passed in WPS No.512 of 2016 (Chandrakant Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh and others). Earlier, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court and prayed to consider his name for the post of Assistant Grade-II, but, the Department has not considered his name and passed the impugned order without assigning any reason and when the petitioner approached orally and through representation before the respondent authorities to ask why his name was not considered when he fulfills all the requisite qualifications and he is eligible as per the rules and he had also submitted the details of properties as per Rule 19 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, after notice dated 24.03.2014, on 26.03.2014. When the representation of the petitioner was not decided as per the Rules and the petitioner was not promoted, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court which was disposed of with a direction to decide the representation / case of the petitioner 3 within three months, but unfortunately, the respondents have not considered and decided the same and informed the petitioner that he had wrongly submitted representation before the Finance Department because he is originally the employee of General Administration Department, but later-on, the General Administration Department suo motu taken decision to decide the representation of the petitioner and finally, the respondents passed the impugned order on 29.08.2022 without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner in the representation and also without considering the general rules and circulars issued by the State Government from time to time. As stated, originally, the impugned notice / order was received by the petitioner in the month of September, 2022. As per the information provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and after going through the information regarding when the candidates have submitted their details regarding their properties to the Department, and in that same letter, the petitioner's name finds place at serial No.36 and in the column of Year 2013, it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner submitted details on 26.03.2014, but in remark which was prepared by the then Under Secretary, it was remarked that the petitioner submitted details lately and therefore he was warned by the Department on 08.04.2015. It is pertinent to mention here that as such, no letter was issued as warning to the petitioner, letter was issued on 02.05.2014 and the petitioner was under the impression that it was issued in normal routine when the 4 information was before the Committee and his name will be considered and he will promoted, but he was shocked and surprised when he came to know that the private respondents were considered and promoted on 09.10.2015 and his name was missing, then he started making representations and praying for documents for reasons of non-consideration of his name and when his application was not entertained, then he filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court in which there was a direction by this Hon'ble Court and finally, without considering the grounds mentioned in the writ petition and the order passed in the said writ petition, one sided, arbitrarily and illegally, the representation of the petitioner was dismissed without assigning any reasonable reasons. Hence, this writ petition. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relation to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion from the date when his juniors i.e. the private respondents herein were promoted to the higher post i.e. from 09.10.2015 and he may also be paid interest and other consequential benefits and compensation as well. 5 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant such other relief(s) in favour of the petitioner, as it may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the action on the part of the respondent authorities is arbitrary and illegal. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court and prayed for consideration of his name for the post of Assistant Grade-ll, but, the Department did not consider his name and passed the impugned order without assigning any reason and when the petitioner approached orally and through representation before the respondent authorities to ask why his name was not considered when he has fulfilled all the requisite qualifications and he was eligible as per the rules and he had also submitted the details of properties as per Rule 19 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, after notice dated 24.03.2014, on 26.03.2014. When the representation of the petitioner was not decided as per the Rules and the petitioner was not promoted, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court which was disposed of with a direction to decide the representation /case of the petitioner within three months, but unfortunately, the respondents have not considered and decided the same and informed the petitioner that he had wrongly submitted representation before the Finance Department because he is originally the employee of 6 General Administration Department, but later-on, the General Administration Department suo motu taken decision to decide the representation of the petitioner and finally, the respondents passed the impugned order on 29.08.2022 without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner in the representation and also without considering the general rules and circulars issued by the State Government from time to time. Originally, the impugned notice / order was received by the petitioner in the month of September, 2022. As per the information provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and after going through the information regarding when the candidates have submitted their details regarding their properties to the Department, and in that same letter, the petitioner's name finds place at serial No.36 and in the column of Year 2013, it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner submitted details on 26.03.2014, but in remark which was prepared by the then Under Secretary, it was remarked that the petitioner submitted details lately and therefore he was warned by the Department on 08.04.2015. It is pertinent to mention here that as such, no letter was issued as warning to the petitioner, letter was issued on 02.05.2014 and the petitioner was under the impression that it was issued in normal routine when the information was before the Committee and his name will be considered and he will promoted, but he was shocked and surprised when he came to know that the private respondents were considered and promoted on 09.10.2015 and his name was missing, then he 7 started making representations and praying for documents for reasons of non-consideration of his name and when his application was not entertained, then he filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court in which there was a direction by this Hon'ble Court and finally, without considering the grounds mentioned in the writ petition and the order passed in the said writ petition, one sided, arbitrarily and illegally, the representation of the petitioner was dismissed without assigning any reasons. For the first time, in the year 2015, when the petitioner was in the zone of consideration for the post of Assistant Grade-II, the respondent Department has issued seniority list as on 01.04.2015 and the petitioner has been placed at serial No.36 in the said list, whereas private respondent Mirza Muskan Baig has been placed at serial No.37, private respondent Lokeshwar Kumar Sahu has been placed at serial No.42 and private respondent Lalit Kumar Paul has been placed at serial No.43. These private respondents were juniors to the petitioner. On 24.03.2014, the petitioner received a letter from the Department that he has not submitted the details regarding properties for the year 2013 and he was directed to submit the details of properties along with the reason for delay and in compliance of the same, the petitioner submitted all the details on 26.03.2014 and he also mentioned that it was not in routine and that was the only reason he was unable to submit the same within time and it was bona fide and therefore his name may be considered and the submission be taken on record. After passage of time 8 when there was no reply by the Department that why the name of the petitioner was not considered for further promotion, the petitioner moved an application in the form of representation and also filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 praying for details of proceedings why his name was not considered and when it was supplied to the petitioner by the Department, the reason mentioned in the remark is that the petitioner has submitted his details regarding properties on 08.04.2015 and that was the reason why his name was not considered for promotion. The petitioner submitted the details of property on 26.03.2014. It is not in dispute. The Department issued notice on 02.05.2014 before the promotion order dated 09.10.2015, it means, the ground for non-consideration of the name of the petitioner is nothing but arbitrary and illegal, because, the day the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting was held, on that day, confidential reports of all the preceding five years were before the Department and there was no reason for the Department not to consider the name of the petitioner for further promotion. After obtaining the information, the petitioner again submitted a representation and on 09.10.2015, when the name of the petitioner was not considered by the Department, he again submitted a detailed representation. There is a discrimination by the Department relying upon some rule, but discriminating the petitioner, one sided, one Shri Pappulal Banjare was promoted, though he also submitted his details regarding properties with delay and 9 it is also relevant to mention here that for the year 2010, it was not submitted, but, even then, his case was considered and he was promoted to further post. It is further relevant to mention here that Shri Pappulal Banjare submitted property details of the year 2011 on 26.05.2012, means after 31st of January, however, on the same reason, his case was considered and he was promoted and on the other side, name of the petitioner was not considered and due to that, he is still facing difficulty and humiliation because his juniors were promoted superseding him. While rejecting the representation of the petitioner by the Department, the Department has relied upon the circular issued by the State of Chhattisgarh on 17.07.2012 and that is the only reason mentioned in the rejection order that the petitioner has not submitted the details of properties of five years before 31st of January of that particular year as per Rule 19 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. It is not in dispute that there was a circular and there was time limit to submit property details before 31st of January, but it also not in dispute that subsequently, the Department on 18.04.2013 issued a circular to all the Head of the Departments/Head of the Institutions and ordered that on 17.07.2012 the State of Chhattisgarh has issued some circular regarding submission of property details before 31 of January and for that a training is necessary to be imparted to all the responsible persons who maintain the data and details and therefore officers and employees should be trained for the said work. When the petitioner came to know 10 that non-imparting of training in respect of timely submission of property details will be one of the reasons that he submitted his property details with short delay, then he moved an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and asked the Department that whether in compliance of clause 4 of the circular dated 18.04.2013, any of the officers and employees were sent for any such training and in reply dated 07.01.2016, the State Government mentioned that no one was trained for the same. It is not the only responsibility of the employee to submit the details of property of five years before 31st of January of every year, as per the circular dated 17.07.2012, it is also the duty of the employer to issue notice and remind the employee regarding submission of property details and therefore subsequently, in the year 2013, the Department has issued a circular and direction to all the Head of the Departments / Head of the Institutions to impart training to the officers and employees for the same. Accordingly, on 24.03.2014, the Department has issued a notice to the petitioner and asked him to submit details of property so that his name will be considered for further promotion. The petitioner was under the impression that his case will be considered and he will promoted to the further promotional post. However, the manner, the DPC was conducted and the manner the name of the petitioner was not considered and one sided, his juniors have been promoted is nothing but illegal and arbitrary and against the rules framed by the State Government and due to the typographical 11 mistake made by the then Steno of the office of the Committee, the petitioner is deprived of promotion and is still facing problem because, his juniors were promoted to higher post. In routine manner, the members of the DPC used to see the remarks made by the clerk of the office and in the present case, the remark which was mentioned before the petitioner was wrong and the petitioner have documents in support of that and therefore non-consideration of the name of the petitioner for further promotion is nothing but arbitrary and illegal. As such, the petitioner approached before this Hon'ble Court to get his name considered for further promotion from back date when the private respondents were promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II. Rule 19 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 deals with the submission of property details and in that Rule 19, there is a commentary of the Chhattisgarh Suvidha Handbook in which it was categorically mentioned that it is also the responsibility of the Government to receive the details of property as per Rule 19. Earlier, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court which was registered as WPS No.512 of 2016 (Chandrakant Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) which was finally heard and disposed of on 15.12.2021 and this Hon'ble Court has directed the respondents to decide the case of the petitioner within three months. In compliance with this Court's order dated 15.12.2021, the petitioner made fresh representation to the Department on 24.07.2022 mentioning all the grounds, but it is unfortunate on the part of the 12 respondents that they have not considered the case of the petitioner and informed that the petitioner has submitted representation before the wrong authority because he is the employee of the General Administration Department, and on legal advise, the petitioner submitted representation before both the Departments and finally, by way of the impugned order, the representation of the petitioner was rejected and therefore he has no other choice, but to file the present writ petition challenging the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that as per rule the contents of this paragraph are meant for giving details of the order impugned and describing the subject matter in brief. That, in so far as the contents of this paragraph of the petition serve those purposes, which are not denied but in so far as the petitioner makes allegation adverse to the Answering Respondents are denied. However, at the very outset, it is respectfully submitted by the Answering Respondents that, all the adverse allegations leveled by the petitioner anywhere in the entire writ petition against the Answering Respondents, the same are vehemently denied. It was further submitted that the petitioner was well aware of the fact that, he has to submit annual property details every year as the same is mandatory for every government servant, however, the petitioner had not submitted the said details, therefore, the authorities have no other option but to ask for such annual property details. It 13 was further submitted that the submission made by the petitioner is not disputed. The petitioner has not submitted his annual property details in time, accordingly, he was not under the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-II. The petitioner was under obligation to submit his property details prior to 31.01.2014, which the petitioner failed to submit, accordingly he did not come under the zone of consideration. The DPC was held on 24.09.2015, where the case of several eligible persons were considered, however, the persons who could not have submitted their annual property details, they were kept out of zone of consideration. In the aforesaid consideration not only the petitioner there are other 05 persons who were kept out of consideration in accordance with the provisions of the circular dated 17.07.2012. The State/respondents have strictly followed the circular dated 17.07.2012 by which around 05 persons were kept out of zone of consideration as they had not submitted their annual property details in time. The circular dated 17.07.2012 could not have been diluted by a circular dated 18.04.2013. A direction has been issued to provide guidance to the persons so that the annual property detail may be submitted on time. It is not the case of the petitioner that he does not know about filing of the form, therefore, he could not claim that he should have been given benefit under circular dated 18.04.2013. The petitioner tried to submit that he was not imparted any training with respect to submission of property detail. The petitioner has not made 14 any representation showing his inability. It is not the case that the petitioner could not submit any representation earlier also but it is a case where the petitioner was under obligation to submit his property details within time, which the petitioner failed to do so. The petitioner being a government servant is under obligation to follow all the instructions, circular and rules, which has been issued from time to time by his employer. Once the circular dated 17.07.2012 has been issued, the petitioner is also bound to submit property details within time as per the said circular. Therefore, after lapse of the date stipulated for submission of the same, he cannot shift his burden to his employer. Therefore, there was a dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner where he failed to submit property details in time. Accordingly, by way of universal circular, he was kept out of zone of consideration. In such a situation, the employees who are eligible and submitted the property details in time, have been considered for promotion. Accordingly, they were considered ahead the petitioner. The petitioner has made irrelevant submission in this para, which has no sanctity, therefore, the same is liable to be rejected. The petitioner has failed to submit his application within time and tried to shift his burden upon its employer. The petitioner being government servant is under obligation to follow all such instructions issued by the State Government. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate the arbitrariness and illegality on the part of the State/respondents. The claim of the petitioner has been duly considered and by a reasoned 15 order, the same has been rejected. There is no illegality in the order impugned passed by the State/respondents. The State/respondents have passed a detailed order vide Annexure P/1 where the claim of the petitioner has been duly considered and appropriate reasoned order has been passed. The petitioner has narrated the fact without support of any document, therefore, in absence of any documentary evidence, the submission of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. The circular dated 17.07.2012 prescribes for submission of property details within stipulated time, which the petitioner failed to comply with the same. In compliance with this Court's order, the claim of the petitioner has been duly considered and reasoned order has been passed. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State/respondents. 5. I have heard the rival contentions put-forth by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care. 6. From perusal of the record, it seems that in the earlier round of litigation before this Court in WPS No.512 of 2016 vide order darted 15.12.2021 this Court has passed the following orders: “2. Be that as it may, the petitioner is at liberty to make representation to respondent No.1 claiming promotion to the post of Assistant Grade – II from the date his juniors were promoted. Respondent No.1 shall decide 16 representation of the petitioner strictly, in accordance with law within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 7. In compliance with the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondents authorities on 24.7.2022 mentioning all the grounds which have been raised before this Court, but, the same is in vain as the respondents authorities have not considered the case of the petitioner and it has been informed that the petitioner has filed his representation before an authority which was not competent to pass orders. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved his representation before both of the departments, however, it reflects that by the impugned order dated 29.8.2022 the General Administration Department, State of Chhattisgarh has held that since the information and details of annual property details has not been filed before the appropriate authorities, as such the petitioner could not be considered for promotion for the post of Assistant Grade – II. It is apparent that the petitioner has submitted the details of immovable properties before the respondents authorities. Though instead of filing before the appropriate authorities, it has been filed before some other authorities. Except this, no other reason has been assigned by the respondents authorities for non-consideration of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade – II. From perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner has submitted details of his properties on 26.3.2014 itself just after two days when 17 he received a letter from the department on 24.3.2014. The sole criterion for non-considering the petitioner for grant of promotion is delay in filing the details of immovable properties acquired by the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, this alone cannot be a ground for denying promotion to the petitioner. If the petitioner is eligible in all respects, only for the reason that he has not submitted details of immovable properties acquired within a year would not be a ground for non-consideration of promotion to the petitioner. This itself cannot be fatal for the petitioner while not considering him for promotion. There is one another aspect of the matter which is discrimination in considering the case of the petitioner. One Shri Pappulal Banjare has also supplied his property details with delay. The property details pertaining to the year 2010 was also not supplied even though his case was considered for promotion and subsequently he was promoted to a promotional post. The said Mr. Pappulal Banjare has submitted his property details pertaining to the year 2011 on 26.5.2012 meaning thereby time and again Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that promotion is not a right to an employee, but, consideration for promotion is a matter of right for an employee and an employee cannot be denied to be considered for promotion without any plausible reason. In the present matter, the petitioner was denied for consideration of his name for promotion only on the sole ground that he has not submitted details of his immovable property in time. 18 8. In the matter of Bihar State Electricity Board and others v. Dharamdeo Das, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, (2022) 12 SCC 579 where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty and others, (1991) 2 SCC 295 and Ajit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, (1999) 7 SCC 209, a three Judge Bench observed thus: 41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty and others, (2022) 12 SCC 579 in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below: “4. ….. There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this 19 perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent-writ petitioner t equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.” 42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, (1991) 2 SCC 295, laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her’s fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J. Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27: “Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right 22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the ‘State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws’, Article 16(1) issues a positive command that: 20 ‘there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State’. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense “equality of opportunity” in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word “employment” being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16(1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be “considered” for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion, which is his personal right. “Promotion” based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1) 21 * * * 27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1997) 5 SCC 201, and followed in Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538, and other cases, if it is intended to lay down that the right guaranteed to employees for being “considered” for promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have already stated earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to be “considered” for promotion is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1997) 5 SCC 201], right from 1950.” 9. Recently, in the matter of P. Sakthi v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others, in Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.30700 of 2024), decided on 2.5.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus: 22 “4. …… It is trite that the employee has no right to be promoted but has a right to be considered, when selections for promotions are carried out, unless disqualified; which right has been impinged, unjustly, in the above case.” 10. In light of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and looking to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents authorities to consider the case of the petitioner on merits for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade – II from the date his juniors were promoted and for this the respondents authorities are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner while conducting review meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee on merits of the case of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders. This exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh