1 2025:CGHC:6383 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3963 of 2014 1. Santosh Kumar Soni And Ors. S/o Shri Har Prasad Soni Aged About 40 Years Currently Working As Assistant Grade-Iii In High Court Establishment, Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Braj Bihari Dubey S/o Lt Shri Kamla Prasad Dubey Aged About 40 Years Currently Working As Assistant Grade III in High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Gaurav Soni S/o Shri M.L.Soni Aged About 40 Years Currently Working As Assistant Grade III in High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Lt Shri M.P.Sharma Aged About 39 Years Currently Working As Assistant Grade III in High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... PETITIONER(S) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, Department of Law, Mahanadi Bhawan, Rakhi, New Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General, Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Registrar General High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bodri, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.04.01 16:23:19 +0530 2 4. Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha Aged About 47 Years Working As Assistant Grade-II In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. Shri Kamal Kishore Brokar Aged About 40 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6. Shri Ravi Kumar Dewangan Aged About 38 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7. Shri Pradeep Kumar Yadav Aged About 39 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8. Shri Trilok Chandra Deshmukh Aged About 43 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 9. Shri Heeramani Sahu Aged About 33 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 10. Shri Laxmi Kant Thawayit Aged About 38 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 11. Shri Atul Soni Aged About 36 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 12. Smt. Dhiraj Shrivastava Aged About 41 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 13. Shri Jeewan Lal Sahu Aged About 41 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 14. Smt. Neelima Gupta Aged About 40 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 15. Shri Arvind Kumar Pandey Aged About 33 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 16. Shri Amit Kumar Kurmi Aged About 33 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 17. Shri Shri Jitendra Kashyap Aged About 40 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 18. Shri Neelesh Mishra Aged About 37 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 19. Shri Prahalad Kumar Sinha Aged About 31 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 20. Shri Surendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 32 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 21. Shri Ajay Laxakar Aged About 34 Years Working As Assistant Grade- Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 22. Shri Niranjan R. Darshan Aged About 36 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 23. Shri Hemant Kumar Patanwar Aged About 36 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 24. Shri Devendra Kumar Aged About 34 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 25. Shri Suresh Kumar Baghmare Aged About 40 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 26. Shri Anand Kumar Bhawsar Aged About 36 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 27. Shri Vimal Kumar Ratre Aged About 42 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 28. Shri Bhoj Ram Sahu Aged About 38 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 29. Smt. Dipti Shukla Aged About 39 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 30. Shri Murli Singh Aged About 38 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 31. Shri Chandrabhusan Aged About 39 Years Working As Assistant Grade-Ii In High Court Establishment Bodri, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... RESPONDENT(S) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. GA For Respondent No. 2 and 3. : Mr. S.S. Marhas, Advocate For Respondents No. 29,30, and 31 : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava with Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Advocate 5 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 04/02/2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the gradation list for year 2012 communicated by respondent No. 3 vide memo dated 08.02.2013 and order of rejection of representation dated 09.11.2012, 14.01.2013 for grant of seniority with effect from the date of their initial appointment i.e. on 24.10.2005. 2. Facts of the case in brief, are that the petitioners were initially appointed as peon with the High Court Establishment from the date mentioned in the table form which reads as under:- Sr No. Name of the officers/officials Education Qualification DOB Date of first appoint. In Govt. Service Date of appoint.t to the present post Date of confirmatio n Rem arks 39 Shri Santosh Kumar Soni MA Mcom, LLB, PGDCA Hindi and Eng typing 25.05.1974 17.05.2004 25.10.2005 05.10.200 8 Sub 40 Shri Brajbihari Dubey BA LLB, Hindi & Eng. Typing 20.10.1974 28.09.2005 24.10.2005 05.10.200 8 sub 41 Shri Anand Nakhre BA, Hindi & Eng. Typing 8.10.1973 28.09.2005 24.10.2005 FN 5.10.2008 sub 42 Shri Gaurav Soni B.Sc, MA, PGDCA, Llb, Hindi and Eng typing 28.03.1979 28.09.2005 FN 24.10.2005 FN 05.10.200 8 Sub 43 Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma MA, Hindi & English typing 12.05.1975 28.09.2005 24.10.2005 05.10.200 8 Sub 6 3. The respondent No. 3 with intent to promote the class-IV employee of the High Court Establishment has initiated for promotion on the post of AG-III, the criteria for promotion has been prescribed in promotion Rule 2005 amended from time to time which provides subject to suitability for promotion as per amendment made in the Rule 2003 on 27-9-2005. The petitioners have participated in the skill test of Hindi and English Typing examination. The petitioners have committed mistake but do not stand on merit position, therefore, they were purely promoted on the post of AG-III in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590 for a period of one year on ad hoc basis, with a condition that during this period, they have to appear in the typing test and shall have to secure minimum qualifying marks i.e. 25% marks of the aggregate marks in the typing test which may be conducted at any time after nine months or within one year from the date of issuance of promotion order. Accordingly the petitioners have joined the services on ad hoc basis. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 conducted typing test and they have cleared the typing examination on 05.10.2006 which is evident from Annexure R-2/3, the petitioners have obtained more than 25% of the aggregate 40 marks in the typing test, as such, they have declared as successful candidates and promoted as Assistant Grade-III in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590/- on officiating capacity for a period of two years on the establishment of the High court on 05.10.2006. Thereafter the High Court Establishment has issued gradation list on 7 29.09.2007 wherein the name of the petitioners reflected at Sr. No. 24, 25 and 26 at gradation list of Assistant Grade-III and the private respondents are below the petitioners, thereafter in the year 2012 impugned gradation list was issued by the High Court, placing the petitioners below the private respondents by removing anomaly created in the gradation list. 4. On the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that without giving any opportunity of hearing, seniority of the petitioners have been changed which is in violation of principle of natural justice as well as violation of Rule 12 of General Condition Rules, 1961 and would pray for quashing of impugned gradation list. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ High Court would submit that the petitioners were initially appointed on ad hoc basis with a condition that they should clear the skill test then only they have been considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Grade-III and ad hoc employee does not have any right, even they were not fulfilling the condition enumerated in the Recruitment Rule 6 (1) of part V Sr. No. 7(b) of part-1 schedule of Chhattisgarh High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2003 as amended on 27.09.2005, which provides that 15% posts of Assistant Grade-III (Computer) shall be filled up by promotion from amongst qualified class-IV employees subject to suitability through departmental examination. Thus, it is incumbent upon the petitioners to clear 8 suitability test through Departmental Examination, as such the petitioners cannot claim any right over the private respondents. He would further submit that the private respondent have cleared the examination but mistakenly they have been placed below the petitioners, thereafter they submitted the representation before the High Court, subsequently gradation list was modified. He would further submit that It is well settled legal position of law that if any illegality is carried out the same can be rectified and no notice is required to be issued to the persons who are adversely affected as the facts are known to them that they have not cleared the suitability test. Even from records it is quite vivid that the petitioners’ fundamental right is not being adversely affected by the action of the respondents as the petitioners are beneficiary of the mistake committed earlier and they have no legal right to continue with the same gradation list. Accordingly the mistake is rectified and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From the above discussion made above, it has to be ascertained by this Court whether re-fixing of seniority of the petitionerd in the gradation list as per the provisions of Rule 12 (4) a and b of the Civil Services (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1968 requires opportunity of hearing or not? 9 8. To appreciate this point, it is expedient for this Court to go through with the Rules 12 (4) of the Civil Service General Condition Rules which provide for maintaining seniority of ad hoc employees. Rule 12 (4) (a) A person appointed on ad hoc basis shall not get any seniority till the regularization of his seniority till the regularization of his service. (b) If a person is appointed on ad hoc basis by substantially following the procedure laid down by the recruitment Rules and the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service shall be counted for seniority. 9. From bare perusal of the Sr. No. 7 (b) of schedule part V of Chhattisgarh High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2003 as amended on 27.09.2005 provides that 15% posts shall be filled up by the promotion from amongst qualified class-IV employees subject to suitability of departmental examination. Thus, the petitioners should have cleared the departmental examination conducted by the High Court for analyzing the suitability of the petitioners for the post of Assistant Grade-III. Accordingly, respondent High Court has conducted the suitability test wherein the petitioners have not secured minimum marks required for proving their suitability still the High Court has given them ad hoc promotion on the post of AG- III subject to condition of passing the suitability test within the time period given by the High Court thereafter the petitioners have joined their service on the date mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of the judgment in the pay scale of AG-III subject to passing of the suitability test within the time period given by the High Court. The petitioners have 10 cleared the suitability test on 05.10.2008 since then they have granted seniority whereas the private respondents have directly appointed on the post of AG -III on 5th July, 2005. Similarly, the respondents namely Smt Vandana Mishra, Santosh Kumar Soni, Brijbehari Dubey, Anand Nakhare, Gaurav Soni and Manoj Kumar Sharma have cleared suitability test as they have obtained more than 25% of aggregate 40 marks in the typing test, therefore, they have been promoted on 05.10.2006, as such it cannot be held that the petitioners have been discriminated or illegality has been committed by the respondent authority in granting seniority from 05.10.2008. Even otherwise, Rule 12(4) b provide grant of seniority of ad hoc period if the government servant appointed on ad hoc basis by substantially following the procedure laid down by the Recruitment Rule and the appointment continues uninterruptedly till the regularization of service in accordance with the rules then only seniority can be granted. 10. In the present case, the petitioners were not appointed on ad hoc basis by substantially following the procedure of Recruitment Rules as they were unable to clear the suitability test by obtaining more than 20% marks of aggregate marks, as such the petitioners are not entitled to get seniority of ad hoc period and the respondents have not committed any illegality in not granting seniority for the ad hoc period by correcting the gradation list. 11 11. Since all the facts are known to the petitioners, as such they cannot take plea that without opportunity of hearing the gradation list has been corrected. In fact, in the present case, grant of opportunity of hearing will be merely a formality as the petitioners are unable to point out the fact projected by the High Court to be incorrect or illegal. As such, the issue raised in this petition is answered against the petitioners and writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh