1 2025:CGHC:2994-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 18 of 2025 1 - Smt. Poonam Patel W/o Shri Ramakant Patel, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Q. No. 3236, Ward No. 61, Shivam Vihar Ravatpura Colony, Raipur, Tahsil and District - Raipur (C.G.) (Appellant / Petitioner Before Honble Single Bench) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Tribal Welfare, Ministry at Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Antyavasai Sahkari Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam TRI Building, 2nd Floor Sector - 24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Secretary Chhattisgarh State Antyavasai Sahkari Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam TRI Building, 2nd Floor Sector – 24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Babubhai Shrivas Executive Officer / Manager, Zila Antyavasai Sahkari Vikas Samiti, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Laxmi Prasad Kashyap Executive Officer/ Manager, Zila Antyavasai Sahkari Vikas Samiti, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Jai Kapil Shah Assistant General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Antyavasai Sahkari Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam, TRI Building, 2nd Floor, Sector – 24, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 7 - Adarsh Sao Assistant General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Antyavasai Sahkari Evam Viskas Nigam, TRI Building, 2nd Floor, Sector - 24, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 8 - Manharan Koshley Executive Officer / Manager, Zila Antyavasai Sahkari Vikas Samiti, Baloda Bazar, District - Balodabazar (C.G.) 9 - Smt. Sita Shrivas Executive Officer / Manager, Zila Antyavasai Sahkari Vikas Samiti, Jagdalpur District - Bastar (C.G.) (Note Due to typographical mistake name of res no. 9 was missed in the writ petition and in her place name of res. no . 8 was repeated in cause title as res. no. 9 also, therefore res. No. 9 is being made as party in her correct name. ... Respondents (Res 1 to 9 Before Honble Single Bench) For Petitioner : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17-01-2025 1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner/appellant against the impugned order dated 02-12- 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.7772/2024 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 2. Brief facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the writ petition as well as the writ appeal are that, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Instructor vide order dated 14-02-2013 and completed her probation period vide order dated 23-03- 2016. The gradation list was published by the department as on 3 04-01-2018 for considering on promotion to the post of Assistant General Manager/CEO/Manager in which the name of the petitioner finds place at Serial No.12 and respondents No.4 to 9 were placed below the name of the petitioner. One DPC was convened on 29-09-2018 for consideration of promotion from the post of which the Chief Instructor/Regional Officer to the post of Assistant General Manager/CEO/Manager on the basis of gradation list published on 01-04-2018. In the said DPC the petitioner was declared unfit on the ground that her ACR for the year 2016-17 was not available. However, respondents No.4 and 5 who were junior to the petitioner were considered for promotion and benefited by the same vide order dated 05-10- 2018. The petitioner requested from the department to provide her ACR of 5 years, but the same was not provided to her and then she pursued her case by filing RTI appeal and first appeal was decided on 02-11-2019. Thereafter, after obtaining copy of the ACR 2016-17 and upgraded ACR or 2017-18 she approached the authority for promotion to the next higher post with effect from 05-10-2018 and when the benefit was not extended to her, she filed WPS No.4144/2021 before this Court which has been disposed of vide order dated 10-08-2021 directing the authorities to take appropriate decision in claim of the petitioner. Pursuant to the order dated 10-08-2021 a review DPC was convened and the petitioner was promoted vide order dated 07-01-2022, but her name has been kept below than the 4 names of respondents No.4 to 9 who were juniors to the petitioner. Since juniors to the petitioner were given promotion with effect from 05-10-2018, but the petitioner who was senior has been given promotion with effect from 07-01-2022 and his seniority has been deliberately kept below from her juniors she again filed WPS No.2015/2022 which has again been disposed of vide order dated 07-04-2022 again directing the authorities to decide the claim of the petitioner within stipulated time. Despite the specific direction passed in WPS No.2015/2022 when the petitioner’s claim of seniority with effect from 05-10-2018 was not considered, she again approached this Court by another WPS No.1199/2024 which was disposed of vide order dated 18- 07-2024 directing the authorities to decide the representation pertaining to claim of seniority of the petitioner and thereafter, the authorities have passed the order and rejected the claim of seniority of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. It is necessary to reproduce the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition which is as below:- “10.1 That this Honb’le Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorizes to call the entire records pertaining to this case. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, thereby to set aside the 5 impugned gradation list published on 01-04-2024 to the extent related to petitioner & Res. 4 to 9, order dated 17-10-2024 (Annexure P/1) after declaring it to be unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary, and further to direct the authorities to provide seniority to the petitioner of promotion post with effect from dated 05-10-2018 at her actual deserving position just above to the res no 4 to 9, and further to pass any other relief(s) which it deems fit along with cost of the petition in the interest of justice.” After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches vide order dated 02-12-2024 which is under challenge in the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner would submit that the petitioner is senior to respondents No.4 to 9, but her name was not considered for promotion in the DPC held on 29-09- 2018 for want of ACR of the petitioner for the year 2016-17 and at the same time the juniors have been promoted vide its order dated 05-10-2018. After passing of the order by this Court in WPS No.4144/2021 dated 10-08-2021 the petitioner was promoted by convening the review DPC, but her seniority was kept below than respondents No.4 to 9 and her seniority has not been considered yet. Therefore, he would further submit that 6 the petitioner is litigating since 2018 for her promotion and seniority and every action of respondent authorities have been challenged by her, but till date her claim of seniority have not been considered and therefore, she filed the instant writ petition for appropriate direction which cannot be said to be suffered by delay and laches, yet the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches which is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed in the writ petition as well as writ appeal. 6. From perusal of the material produced in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal it is quite vivid that the petitioner claimed in the present writ petition for setting aside the gradation list published on 01-04-2024 to the extent it relates to the petitioner and respondents No.4 to 9 and also claimed seniority to the petitioner with effect from 05-10-2018 keeping her name above the names of respondents No.4 to 9. By one or other means the petitioner claimed for her seniority with effect from 05-10-2018, but the department has not considered her seniority till date with effect from 05-10-2018. Based on the earlier promotion and gradation list the present gradation list was published on 01-04- 2024. Until and unless placement of the petitioner in the earlier gradation list is modified or corrected the subsequent gradation 7 list cannot be disturbed for want of any sufficient reason. The actual claim of the petitioner is claim of her seniority with effect from 05-10-2018 for which the DPC was convened on 29-09- 2018 and she has not been considered for promotion for want of her ACR of the year 2016-17. Instead of challenging the action of respondent department in the year 2018 itself, she has filed the writ petition in the year 2024 which the learned Single Judge considered to be suffered by inordinate delay and in the meantime the private respondents have accrued their rights which may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation. 7. Considering the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152 and Bichitrananda Behera Vs. State of Orissa and others, 2023 Livelaw (SC) 883, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner holding that the petition suffers from delay ad laches and the reasons for delay has not been satisfactorily explained, we are also concur with the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge and do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the finding recorded in the impugned order after adverting entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the learned Single Judge has come to conclusion which is neither perverse or contrary to the facts available in the record. 8 8. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil