1 2025:CGHC:47214 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9992 of 2025 • Satish Janardhan Kekre S/o Late Shri J.V. Kekre Aged About 82 Years R/o Block No. D 4.1 N.B. C.C. Vibyor Apartment, N.B.C.C Campus North Twenty Four Pargana New Town Calcutta (W.B.) Pin - 700158 ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District - Raipur - 492002 Chhattisgar. 2. The Commissioner Directorate Of Higher Education Government Of Chhattisgarh Shiksha Bhawan, Indrawati Bhawan, Parisar, Naya Raipur - 492002 Chhattisgarh. 3. State Of Madhya Pradesh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal - 462004 Madhya Pradesh 4. ... Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sabyasachi Badhuri, Advocate. For Respondents/State. : Mr. Sabyasachi Choiubey, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 2 15/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition (2) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for following reliefs. “i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant the petitioner promotion to the post of Principal, Degree College w.e.f. 07.09.1991, and Principal, Post Graduate College w.e.f. 24.06.1996, with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary, fixation of pay, seniority, pension, and other retiral benefits, on parity with his counterparts in the cadre who were similarly promoted in the parent State of Madhya Pradesh; ii. Quash and set aside the impugned order/communication dated 24.03.2025, issued by the Higher Education Department, Government of Chhattisgarh. iii. Declare that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the judgment dated 07.09.2005 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in W.P. No. 11324/2003, and the implementation thereof, as done in the case of his juniors in Madhya Pradesh; iv. Pass such other and further orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice” 2. From perusal of the reliefs sought by the petitioner, it is quite vivid that the petitioner is claiming promotion to the post of Principal, Degree College with effect from 7-9-1001 and Principal, Post Graduate College with effect from 24-6-1996 with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, fixation of pay, seniority, pension and other retiral benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier also the petitioner had preferred writ petition before this Court being WPS No. 3810 of 2011 wherein he has sought same reliefs as reflected from para 2 of the writ petition which reads as under. “2.Mr. Bhaduri, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Principal, Degree College w.e.f. 31.03.2003, but he is entitled to be promoted w.e.f. 07.09.1991 with all consequential benefits. The petitioner has also made representation to the respondent authorities in this regard, but the same has not been considered and decided till date. Further, the petitioner has also been promoted to the post of 3 Principal, PG College w.e.f. 14.10.2005, but he is entitled to be promoted w.e.f. 24.06.1996 with all consequential benefits, whereas the similarly placed candidates have already been promoted in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner has also made representation to the respondent authorities for want of records, but no decision has been taken yet. Therefore, the respondent authorities may be directed to and decide the consider representation” 4. This Court in the aforesaid petition vide order dated 23-8-2021 had passed the order wherein the petitioner was allowed to make a representation before the respondent authorities The said representation has been rejected by the respondent authorities on 24-3-2025 vide Annexure P/1. This order is being assailed by the petitioner by which the promotion of the petitioner in the year 1991-96 had been denied. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State would submit that the petition is hopelessly barred by limitation and on this count alone the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From perusal of the record, it is quite vivid that even in the first round of litigation before this Court, the petition was filed in the year 2011 claiming promotional avenues of 1991 and 1996 which was also about after 16 years wherein this Court has directed the petitioner to make a representation only. 8. It is well settled position of law that the aggrieved person should approach this Court expeditiously for claiming promotion. In various cases, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the writ petition should have been filed within a period of six months. (See the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lipton India Limited vs. Union of India, decided on 16-9-1994). Whereas first round of litigation was filed after lapse of 16 years and this Court has not examined the case on merit, but 4 only directed the petitioner to make a representation. Even it is well settled position of law that successive representation or direction for representation cannot condone the delay. Therefore, I am of the view that this writ petition suffers from delay and latches and no relief by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be considered in favour of the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.09.17 11:43:31 +0530