1 2025:CGHC:3823-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 34 of 2025 Umashankar Verma S/o Late Shri Krishna Verma Aged About 66 Years Retired Sahayak Grade-01 Karyalaya Saskiye Minimata Kanya Mahavidhyalaya Korba R/o Village Kharmora Post- Dadarkhurd Dist.- Korba C.G. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Chief Secretary Mukhya Sachiv, Ucch Siksha Vibhag C.G. Sasan, Mantralaya Naya Raipur Dist.- Raipur C.G. 2 - Aayukt Ucch Siksha Sanchalnalaye Block- C 30.2/3 Floor, Indravati Bhawan Naya Raipur Dist.- Raipur C.G. 3 - Mukhya Sachiv Sachiv C.G. Lokseva Aayog Shankar Nagar Road, Bhagat Singh Chowk Raipur C.G. Pin- 492001 4 - Shri G.L.Namdev Registrar Sasan Kirodimal College Raigarh Dist. Raigarh C.G. 5 - Shri V. Pandey Registrar Sasan P.G.D.K. College Balodabazar Dist.- Balodabazar C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 22 .0 1 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.01.23 11:43:29 +0530 2 the State/ respondents on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 322 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2025, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 21.12.2023 (Umashankar Verma vs. Chief Secretary (C.G.) & others) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4710 of 2015, whereby, the writ petition filed by appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4. The facts of the case are that the writ petitioner has filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being WPS No. 4710 of 2025, seeking issuance of direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Registrar like the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and give seniority and balance payments from the date of promotion as given in writ and release the whole balance payment till the date of retirement of the petitioner. As per the petitioner, he joined in Education Department 01.09.1973 and his date of Birth is 01.01.1954 and he was promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-1 on 29.01.2005 and according to the general condition of service and as per the provision of the condition of S.No. 8, he is entitled to get the promotion for the post of Registrar since 14.06.2015 on which date Shri V.K. Pandey and Shri G.L. 3 Namdeo were promoted. It was stated that Shri V.K. Pandey joined in the Education Department on 17.07.1981 and his date of birth is 21.07.1957 and he was promoted on the post Assistant Grade on 29.01.2005 and promoted for the post of Registrar on 14.06.2015 by the respondents and Shri G.L. Namdeo Joined in Education Ddepartment on 19.10.1981 and his date of birth is 04.06.1955 and he was promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-1 on 29.01.2005 although they are junior then the petitioner, therefore, his case should be considered for the promotion on the post of Registrar from 14.06.2015. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 21.12.2023. Hence, this appeal 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge should have considered the entire facts of the case in a comprehensive and proper manner. The petitioner's seniority was not considered, and junior respondents were wrongly promoted. The petitioner was denied promotion due to a departmental complaint, and a junior was promoted to the post of Registrar, with an incorrect promotion order issued on June 14, 2015, which should have included the petitioner's name. The petitioner's claim for promotion should have been heard, and various questions should have been properly addressed, directing the respondents to provide a proper explanation for the promotion, which is essential in the interest of justice. 4 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents / State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order and materials available on record, it transpires that the petitioner was initially appointed as Farrash on 01/09/1973 in the department of Higher Education and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk on 05/01/1991. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-I on 29/01/2005. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as WP(S) No. 224/2011, in which the legality and validity of order dated 25/06/2009 was challenged, wherein a claim of promotion to the post of AG-I (Head Clerk) with effect from 01/09/1990 was rejected. In the said writ petition, it was alleged by the petitioner that even though no adverse remark was communicated to the petitioner, but, he has wrongly been held unfit for promotion to the post of Accountant from the due date i.e. 07/03/1998 when number of juniors were promoted, on account of this, the petitioner was granted promotion belated on the post of A.G.-I (Head Clerk) with effect from 29/01/2005. Vide 5 order dated 11/01/2013 this Court was pleased to allow the writ petition preferred by the petitioner with directions to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of Accountant as on the date when his juniors were considered and promoted with effect from 07/03/1998 and if the petitioner is found fit for promotion on the post of Accountant with effect from 07/03/1998, the respondents would be under an obligation to undertake the exercise of considering the claim of petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of A.G.-I (Head Clerk) from due date and accordingly it was directed the respondents to hold review DPC and consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion on the post of A.G.-I (Head Clerk) in the light of the observations made by this Court as expeditiously as possible. 9. In compliance of the order dated 11/01/2013 passed by this Court, a review DPC was convened on 31/08/2015 and as per the recommendation of the DPC, the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-I with effect from 29/01/2005. The post of Accountant which was earlier in existence in the set-up of the Higher Education Department, was abolished and in place of that post, the post of Assistant Grade-I was sanctioned by the order dated 29/01/2005. In the review DPC, it was also considered that since in the set-up of department of Higher Education, the post of Accountant is not in existence and in place of that post, the post of Assistant Grade-I has been sanctioned by the State Government and therefore, it was 6 decided to give the promotion to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Grade-I with effect from 29/01/2005 i.e. the date on which the post of Assistant Grade-I is sanctioned in the set-up of the Department of Higher Education. It was further considered that in case of promotion to the post of Accountant with effect from 07/03/1998 i.e. the date when the juniors were promoted to the post of Accountant, the seniority of the petitioner would be below the name of Shri G.L. Namdeo at serial no. 17 and above the name of Shri S.P. Sahu at serial no. 18 of the seniority list and accordingly the seniority of the petitioner was fixed below the name of the name of Shri G.L. Namdeo at serial no 4 and above the name of Shri S.P. Sahu at serial no. 5 of the seniority list of the post of Assistant Grade-I. Further, as per Annexure A/6 seniority of the petitioner was below the name of Shri G.L. Namdeo, the DPC considered the name of one Shri V.K. Pandey, who was at S.No.8 and Shri G.L. Namdeo, who was at S.No.9. Further, it is clear from minutes of meeting that name of Shri S.P. Sahu was not considered for promotion as no post was vacant at that point of time. It is not the case of petitioner that his name was above Shri V.K. Pandey or Shri G.L. Namdeo and it is clear from Annexure A/6 that after promotion the name of petitioner was found place below the name of Shri G.L. Namdeo and above the name of Shri S.P. Sahu, therefore, the respondents have rightly not considered the promotion of the petitioner at the time of DPC and after Annexure A/6. The petitioner never challenged the 7 seniority fixed by the respondents as per Annexure A/6, when seniority was fixed below the name of Shri G.L. Namdeo. Considering the aforesaid fact, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra