1 2025:CGHC:60654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3062 of 2023 1 - Jagmohan Baghel Son Of Late Samduram Baghel, Aged About 47 Years Resident Of Ghatpadmur, Bhathagudapara, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya New Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Department Of Urban Administration And Development Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur, District- Bastar Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 5 - Anil Pillai, Working As Accountant And Posted At Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 12/12/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has payed for following reliefs:- “(i) to direct the That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be respondents pleased authorities to quash impugned promotion order dated 26.12.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent no. 3, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased authorities to to direct the respondents consider the objection /representation of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the private respondent No. 5 was initially appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-III in the respondent department, and without following the prescribed promotion rules and without completion of the mandatory five years of service, the respondent authorities, vide promotion order dated 26.12.2018, promoted the private respondent No. 5 to the post of Accountant, which is in clear violation of Serial No. 05 of Schedule-IV of the Gazette. A copy of the relevant portion of the Gazette is being filed herewith as Annexure P-2. That the petitioner raised objections and submitted several representations to the respondent authorities contending that the private 3 respondent No. 5 had been wrongly promoted in contravention of the provisions of Serial No. 05 of Schedule-IV of the Gazette and prayed for cancellation of the said promotion order; however, the respondent authorities have neither considered the petitioner’s representations nor taken any action against the impugned promotion of the private respondent No. 5 till date. 3. None for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced and the reliefs sought in the writ petition, contending that the impugned promotion order dated 26.12.2018, issued by respondent No. 3, has been passed strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and rules governing the field. It is further submitted that the said order does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural infirmity warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. On the contrary, the promotion has been granted after due consideration of all relevant factors, and therefore, the writ petition, being wholly misconceived and devoid of any substance or merit, deserves to be dismissed outright. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respondents and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Although it is alleged that the private respondent No. 5 was promoted to the post of Accountant vide order dated 26.12.2018 without completion of the requisite five years of service and in 4 violation of Serial No. 05 of Schedule-IV of the Gazette, no material has been placed to substantiate the said contention, and none appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press the case or rebut the submissions advanced by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents has convincingly demonstrated that the impugned promotion order has been passed strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and rules, after due consideration of all relevant factors, and the same does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the absence of any cogent ground for judicial review, the writ petition is found to be misconceived and devoid of merits, and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat