1 2025:CGHC:50552-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 728 of 2025 1 - Vijay Kumar Lanjewar S/o Amrit Rao Lanjewar Aged About 68 Years R/o Chandrashekhar Nagar, Aswani Nagar, In Front Of Goyal General Store, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Po And P.S. Rakhi, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Municipal Corporation Through- Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Pramod Rao Jadav S/o Shri Bhupat Rao Aged About 51 Years Presently Working At Municipal Corporation Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Mankuram Dhiwar S/o Shri Bagas Ram Dhiwar Aged About 55 Years Presently Working At Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 5 - Amar Nath Sahu S/o Shri Bise Lal Sahu Aged About 54 Years Presently Working At Municipal Corporation, Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 6 - Vijay Kumar Sharma S/o Keju Ram Sharma Aged About 52 Years Presently Working At Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble S hri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ishan Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the State on I.A. No. 01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 30 days in preferring the appeal. 2. For the grounds assigned in the application I.A. No.01, the same is allowed. Delay of 30 days in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 3. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No.4980 of 2018 3 (Vijay Kumar Lanjewar vs. State of Chhattigarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4. By way of this writ appeal, the appellant has prayed for following relief:- “1.Set aside the impugned order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench in WPS No. 4980 of 2018, which is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case (ANNEXURE A-1); 2. Set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 29.06.2018 (Annexure-P/1 in the writ petition) passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.).; 3. Direct the respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Revenue Inspector w.e.f., 29.06.2018. 4. Direct the respondent to provide petitioner all consequential benefits from the date of promotion order. 5. Pass any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.” 5. The facts of the case according to the appellant is that the appellant, initially appointed as Assistant Revenue Inspector in 1975 and promoted to Revenue Sub-Inspector in 2008, belongs to 4 the OBC category and was eligible for promotion to Revenue Inspector based on five years of service as per the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Rules, 2018. Despite meeting all criteria, including exemption from computer qualification for employees over 45 years as per a 2014 government notification, the appellant was denied promotion by the Municipal Corporation, which promoted juniors possessing the required computer qualification instead. The appellant challenged this exclusion as arbitrary and contrary to the applicable rules, highlighting that similarly placed employees had been granted relaxation and promotion. 6. The writ petition bearing WPS No. 4980/2018 was filed after the appellant’s representation was ignored and the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 23.06.2025 and vide order dated 23.06.2025, learned Single Judge dismissed the petition relying on Supreme Court precedents that promotion must comply with the qualifications in force at the time of consideration. The appellant contends that this decision overlooks established legal principles and the relevant relaxation notification, warranting reconsideration. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- “7. Initially, the petitioners were appointed to the post of Muharrir/Tax Collector under the Municipal Corporation. The petitioners were promoted to the post of Assistant Revenue Inspectors in the year 2008. One of the promotion orders would make it clear that a 5 degree or diploma in computer application was an essential qualification. Pursuant to the condition mentioned in the promotion order, a notice was issued by the Municipal Corporation to its employees to acquire such a qualification. It is not in dispute that the petitioners could not acquire such a qualification till their retirement. 8. The private respondents were absorbed according to the Government Policy and undisputedly, they were employees of the Panchayat Department. 9. With regard to the relaxation, a Notification was issued by the State Government dated 30.04.2014 whereby the requirement of computer qualification was relaxed. The petitioners were promoted to the post of Assistant Revenue Inspectors in the months of April and May of 2008 and in the promotion order, one of the conditions was to acquire a degree or diploma in computer application and in this regard, a notice was issued to all the employees of Corporation. The petitioners could not acquire such a qualification and the recommendation made by the Corporation for relaxation pursuant to the Notification dated 30.04.2014 was turned down by the State Government, thus, the knowledge of computer or degree or diploma in computer application was an essential qualification for the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector and the petitioners could not acquire it. 10.A DPC was convened in the year 2018 and the names of the private respondents and other deserving candidates were considered by the Committee for promotion to the post of Revenue Inspectors but the names of the petitioners were not considered asthey did not have the requisite qualification. 11. The contention made by Mr. Verma that in the year 2018, the essential qualification for the post of Revenue Inspector was modified by the State Government vide Notification dated 16.01.2018 but it cannot be accepted because the petitioners did not have the requisite qualification i.e. a degree or diploma in the computer application for the post of Assistant 6 Revenue Inspectors, therefore, they have no right to claim promotion to the next higher post. Admittedly, the petitioners have already retired from services. 12. In the matter of E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 4 & 5 held as under:- "4. …………………………………. 13. In the matter of C. Muddaiah (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 34 held as under:- 34…………….. 14. The petitioners could not establish the fact that they were eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector and they acquired the eligibility requirement. The DPC in the year 2018 was convened according to old service Rules. The petitioners failed to establish that they have requisite qualification according to the service Rules on the date of consideration. 15. In the matter of Krishna Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 11,12 & 13 held as under:- "11. ……………….. 16.It is a well settled principle of law that a government servant has a right to be considered for promotion strictly in accordance with the existing rules. The petitioners were not having requisite qualification of computer education for promotion to the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector, therefore they have no right to claim promotion to the next higher post. 17. In the matter of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the claim of the Government Servant with regard to promotion cannot be considered after retirement, in paragraphs 15 & 19, as under:- 15……………… 7 20. Taking into consideration the above- discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Amal Sathpathi (supra), in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. 21. Thus, both petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No cost(s).” 7. Mr. Ishan Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the Hon’ble Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition without properly appreciating that the appellant was fully eligible and entitled for promotion from the post of Revenue Sub- Inspector to Revenue Inspector under the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation (Appointment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2018, which came into force on 16.01.2018 and governed the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting held on 21.06.2018. It is contended that as per Rule 11 read with Schedule IV of the said Rules, the only essential qualification for promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector is completion of five years of service in the feeder post of Revenue Sub-Inspector, a condition which the appellant duly fulfills. The denial of promotion on the ground of non-possession of a computer application certificate is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the governing rules, since no such requirement exists under the 2018 Rules. The appellant further submits that the State Government Notification dated 29.04.2014 expressly provides relaxation from computer qualification for employees who have 8 attained the age of 45 years, a benefit which has been extended to similarly placed employees such as Shri Arun Dubey and Shri Abdul Yasin, but unjustly denied to the appellant, thereby violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further urged that the final seniority list dated 12.06.2018 places the appellant at Serial No. 2, above the private respondents, yet his candidature was ignored and juniors were promoted through the impugned order dated 29.06.2018, which is manifestly discriminatory and perverse. The appellant’s representation dated 13.06.2018, seeking consideration and relaxation under the 2014 notification, was not duly decided, rendering the process violative of the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Learned counsel emphasizes that the Hon’ble Single Judge failed to apply the settled principle that an employee is entitled to be considered for promotion under the rules in force on the date of consideration, and not on the basis of any superseded or inapplicable rule. The impugned judgment, therefore, suffers from legal infirmity and warrants interference by this Hon’ble Court to ensure fairness, equality, and adherence to the applicable service rules. Reliance has been placed in the matters of State of Kerala and others vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai in 2007 (6) SCC 524, Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah in 2007 (7) SCC 689 and Government of West Bengal and others vs. Dr. Aman Satpathi and others in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Learned Addl. A.G. as well as 9 Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 herein opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent herein, in which no interference is called for. Accordingly, the present appeal is also liable to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 10. After careful consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for both parties and a thorough perusal of the impugned order and the relevant records, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and affirms the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. It is held that the appellant was rightly denied promotion as he failed to possess the requisite computer qualification, which was a valid condition at the time of the Departmental Promotion Committee’s consideration. The relaxation notification cited by the appellant does not override the applicable rules governing the promotion process in 2018. Further, the learned Single Judge correctly applied the settled legal principle that promotion must be in accordance with the qualifications and rules in force on the date of consideration. Additionally, the Hon’ble Apex Court has already held in the matter of Dr. Aman Satpathi (Supra) that after 10 retirement, promotion cannot be granted to an employee. The appellant’s claim of discrimination and arbitrariness is unsupported, and the process followed by the authorities was fair and lawful. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ appeal, also considering the documents annexed with writ petition and the findings 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. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). 13. Interlocutory application(s), if any pending, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Vishakha