1 2025:CGHC:49735-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 717 of 2025 Ashwani Kumar Manher S/o Shri Chhote Lal Manher Aged About 51 Years Working As Executive Engineer (Electrical) Division Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Housing Board (Established U/s 3 of Chhattisgarh Grihanirman Mandal Adhiniyam 1972) Through Its Chairman, Head Quarters Paryawashbhwan, North Block Section-19, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Chhattisgarh Housing Board Paryawashbhwan, North Block Section-19, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Government of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Housing And Environment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sunil Kumar Singh (Deleted) (In Compliance Of Honble Court Order Dated 22-08-2024) 5 - Rakesh Kumar Patel S/o Shri D.R. Patel Aged About 37 Years Executive Engineer (Electrical), Chhattisgarh Housing Board, R/o E-3, Abhilash Parisar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Narendra Chandrakar S/o Shri L.J. Chandrakar Aged About 37 Years Executive Engineer (Electrical), Chhattisgarh Housing Board, R/o E-3, Abhilash Parisar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.10.07 15:40:45 +0530 2 7 - Pankaj Kumar Mishra S/o Harsh Narayan Mishra Aged About 33 Years Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, R/o Opposite Pooja Plastic Factory, Amalidhi Marg Devpuri, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate For Respondents No. to 7 : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.10 .2025 1 Heard Mr. Somkant Verma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No.3 as well as Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 7. 2 By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside order 3 passed by learned single Judge dated 28.07.2025 and 09.04.2025 passed in Review Petition No. 153/2025 and Writ Petition (S) No 2865/2020, in matter of Ashwani Kumar Manhar Vs Chhattisgarh Housing Board and Sunil Kumar Singh & others Vs. Chhattisgarh Housing Board and Others.” 3 The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.2865/2020 (Sunil Kumar Singh v. Chhattisgarh State Housing Board and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge has been disposed of. Against which, the present appellant herein has filed the review petition being REVP No.153/2025, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.07.2025. 4 Brief facts of the case are as follows :- • Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 filed Writ Petition (S) No. 2865 of 2020 before this Court on 14.07.2020, challenging the resolution dated 27.06.2020 (Annexure P-1 to the writ petition) and seeking a direction to the respondents to maintain parity between Executive Engineers (Civil) and Executive Engineers (Electrical) in accordance with Schedule IV, Sl. No. 2, Column 4, notified under Regulation No. 11, in the matter of promotion to the next higher post of Deputy Commissioner. 4 • Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are Assistant Engineers, who as per the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Griha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972 and the Chhattisgarh Griha Nirman Mandal Seva (Bharti) Vininiyam, 2011, are not eligible for direct promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner. Consequently, the relief sought in the said writ petition was not maintainable. • The writ petitioners had not sought any specific direction for issuance of promotion orders. Their limited prayer was only for maintaining parity between the Civil and Electrical wings in the matter of promotion to the higher post. • During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 withdrew the resolution dated 27.06.2020 by a subsequent resolution passed in the meeting held on 26.03.2025. • The petitioners in WPS No. 2865 of 2020 were Shri Rakesh Kumar Patel, Executive Engineer (Electrical); Shri Narendra Chandrakar, Assistant Engineer (Civil); and Shri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, Assistant Engineer (Civil). Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, being Assistant Engineers, could not have been promoted to the post of Deputy Commissioner by superseding the post of Executive Engineer. • Respondent Nos. 5 to 7, being members of the Civil Engineering cadre, already have a prescribed promotional avenue under the existing regulations. Despite this, they filed the writ petition jointly with a member of the Electrical cadre, 5 rendering the petition not maintainable. • The appellant thereafter preferred a review petition before the learned Single Judge on the ground that the judgment dated 07.08.2024 passed by the Division Bench in WPS No. 8189 of 2019 had not been brought to the notice of the Court at the time of hearing of WPS No. 2865 of 2020, when the order dated 09.04.2025 was passed. The said judgment was directly relevant to the controversy involved. However, the learned Single Judge rejected the review petition on the ground that the administrative instruction dated 12.06.2018 was not the subject matter of the writ petition, though the said instruction was of general applicability to all employees of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. • Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had issued a memo dated 12.06.2018 granting relaxation in the experience criteria for promotion without amending the rules/regulations. In WPS No. 8189 of 2019 (Sushri Prachi Jha vs. State of Chhattisgarh), the Division Bench held that rules could not be amended by an administrative instruction and that the said instruction dated 12.06.2018 could not be given effect to. • Despite the judgment dated 07.08.2024 passed by the Division Bench, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not comply with the same even after the lapse of eleven months. The learned Single Judge, however, did not take this fact into account while 6 rejecting the review petition filed by the appellant. • In paragraph 4 of the impugned order, it was observed that in the linked case, WPS No. 8170 of 2023, the review petitioner was an intervener, whereas in that case the present appellant was respondent No. 4, and in WPS No. 2865 of 2020, the appellant had appeared as an intervener. • It was incumbent upon the appellant to bring to the notice of the Court the judgment dated 07.08.2024 passed by the Division Bench, as the same department, rules, and regulations were involved. Although the appellant was not a party to WPS No. 8189 of 2019, the said judgment was applicable to the appellant, respondents, and all employees under respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in WPS No. 8189 of 2019 is applicable to all employees of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, irrespective of whether the present appellant was a party to that proceeding. It is contended that the memo dated 12.06.2018, which granted relaxation in experience for promotion, was contrary to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Griha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972 and the Chhattisgarh Griha Nirman Mandal Seva (Bharti) Vininiyam, 2011. Consequently, the findings of the Hon’ble Division Bench in WPS No. 8189 of 2019 squarely apply to the 7 present case. However, the learned Single Judge overlooked this aspect and rejected the said ground while dismissing the review petition. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench had passed its judgment in WPS No. 8189 of 2019 on 07.08.2024, and despite the lapse of about eleven months, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not complied with the said order. Without such compliance, no promotion order could validly be issued, as the administrative instruction dated 12.06.2018, forming the basis for such promotions, has already been held to be illegal. It is therefore the bounden duty of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to first implement the directions issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench before proceeding with any promotional exercise. Learned counsel further contends that the learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate that respondent No. 5, being an Executive Engineer (Electrical), may have the next promotional post of Deputy Commissioner, but respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are Assistant Engineers (Civil), whose next promotional post is Executive Engineer (Civil). They cannot be directly promoted to the post of Deputy Commissioner by superseding the post of Executive Engineer, as is evident from the relief clause 10(b) of the writ petition. Therefore, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge with regard to promotion of the petitioners is erroneous, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2–Chhattisgarh Housing Board submits that the writ 8 petition filed by respondent Nos. 5 to 7 was maintainable as it raised an issue relating to parity in promotional avenues between Executive Engineers (Civil) and Executive Engineers (Electrical), which falls within the administrative domain of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is contended that the resolution dated 27.06.2020 was issued in good faith to address long-standing service disparities between two engineering wings. It is further submitted that the administrative instruction dated 12.06.2018 was issued only to provide operational clarity regarding experience criteria and did not amount to an amendment of the rules. The said instruction was issued under the authority of the competent body to ensure uniformity and efficiency in service administration. It is argued that the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in WPS No. 8189 of 2019 (Sushri Prachi Jha v. State of Chhattisgarh) was rendered in a different factual context, and hence, its observations cannot be mechanically applied to the present case. He further submits that the review petition filed by the appellant was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge, as no apparent error was demonstrated on the face of the record. The review petition, in essence, sought to re-argue the matter already decided on merits, which is impermissible in law. Therefore, the impugned orders doe not call for any interference. 7 Learned counsel for the State adopts the submissions made on behalf of the respondent–Housing Board and submits that the issue raised in WPS No. 2865 of 2020 pertained to internal 9 administrative affairs of the Housing Board, and the State had no direct role in the framing of the impugned resolution. It is further contended that the administrative instruction dated 12.06.2018 was issued by the competent authority of the Housing Board, and not by the State Government. It is urged that the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in WPS No. 8189 of 2019 dealt with a distinct factual matrix concerning individual service conditions and cannot be construed to have a blanket application to all employees of the Housing Board. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the said administrative instruction was not the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition and, therefore, no interference was warranted in the review proceedings. 8 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents No.4 to 7 submits that the relief sought in WPS No. 2865 of 2020 was confined only to ensuring parity between Executive Engineers (Civil and Electrical) in matters of promotion, and not for issuance of any specific promotion orders. It is contended that the withdrawal of the resolution dated 27.06.2020 during the pendency of the writ petition does not take away the right of the petitioners to seek equitable treatment in service matters. It is further contended that the appellant, being merely an intervener in the writ petition, had limited locus to file the review petition. The learned Single Judge, after examining the material available on record, found no ground to reopen the issue or modify the judgment, and therefore, rightly dismissed the review petition. 10 Learned Senior Counsel argues that the reliance placed by the appellant on the judgment in WPS No. 8189 of 2019 is misplaced, as that case related to a different service cadre and context. The administrative instruction dated 12.06.2018 has not been struck down in general but was considered in light of the facts of that particular case. Hence, the same cannot automatically render subsequent actions of the Housing Board invalid. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal be dismissed as devoid of merit. 9 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and carefully considered their rival submissions. We have also perused the record of the case, including the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.2865/2020 along with Writ Petition (S) No.8107/2023 as well as the order dated 28.07.2025 passed in REVP No.153/2025. 10 After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties therein as also the materials on record in Writ Petition (S) No.2865/2020, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition along with Writ Petition (S) No.8107/2023 vide order dated 09.04.2025, in the following terms:- “2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 would submit that resolution dated 27.06.2020 (Annexure -P/1), which is subject matter of challenge, has been withdrawn by the Housing Board vide Resolution No.2104 /04/ 82/03/ 2025 in its meeting dated 26.03.2025 and it has been 11 decided to have uniform rules for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner (Civil & Electrical). In this regard, affidavit has been filed by respondents No.1 & 2, in which, it has been specifically mentioned that with the aforesaid development, the resolution which is under challenge in WPS No.2865/2020, stand cancelled, thus no deviation in the rules for promotion on the same post of different branch is now being proposed by the Housing Board & Department, therefore WPS No.2865/2020 has become infructuous, as the relief sought for has already been granted to the petitioners. 3. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that though relief sought for under Clause-A has been granted but respondents may be directed to consider the promotion of petitioners within a period specified by this Court, as in different stream i.e. Deputy Commissioner (Civil); two promotions have already been effected in respect of similarly situated employees. 4. On the above contention, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 would submit that since there is no different rules for promotion of employees of two streams, hence the issue of promotion of petitioners shall be considered after framing regulations. 5. In view of above contentions made by learned counsel for the parties, WPS No.2865/2020 is disposed of. However, 12 respondents are directed to consider the issue of promotion of petitioners after framing/amending regulations, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/submission of a copy of this order before respondents No.1 & 2. 6. Accordingly, WPS No.2865 of 2020 stands disposed of.” 11 Thereafter, the appellant herein has filed review petition being REVP No.153/2025, which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.07.2025 by observing as under :- “8. In WPS No.2865/2020 which was filed by the petitioner therein was only seeking relief of maintaining parity in between Executive Engineer (Civil) and Executive Engineer (Electrical) for their promotion on the next higher post of Deputy Commissioner (Civil /Electrical). The aforesaid Administrative Instruction dated 12.06.2018 which was observed in WPS No.8189/2019 was not a subject matter in that writ petition. Further, the applicant/review petitioner herein was neither petitioner nor respondent in WPS No.8189/2019, therefore, contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant/review petitioner herein that having considered Administrative Instruction dated 12.06.2018 which was made ineffective by Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 07.08.2024 in WPS No.8189/2019, therefore, 13 order dated 09.04.2025 passed by this Court in WPS No.2865/2020 deserves to be reviewed, is not sustainable. 9. Further, there is no apparent error found or brought before the Court in order dated 09.04.2025 passed by this Court in WPS No.2865/2020. Hence, I do not find any good ground to review aforesaid order. 10. Accordingly, instant Review Petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.” 12 Having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the records, it is evident that the learned Single Judge, while deciding Writ Petition (S) No. 2865 of 2020, had rightly taken note of the fact that the resolution dated 27.06.2020, which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition stood withdrawn by the respondent–Housing Board through its subsequent resolution dated 26.03.2025. In light of this development, the learned Single Judge correctly observed that the relief sought by the writ petitioners had already been granted, rendering the writ petition infructuous. The direction issued for consideration of the petitioners’ case for promotion after framing or amending the relevant regulations cannot be said to be arbitrary or contrary to law. 13 So far as the contention of the appellant regarding applicability of the judgment dated 07.08.2024 passed by the Division Bench in WPS No. 8189 of 2019 (Sushri Prachi Jha v. State of 14 Chhattisgarh) is concerned, we find no substance in the same. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the said administrative instruction dated 12.06.2018, which was the subject matter in the said writ petition, was never under challenge in WPS No. 2865 of 2020. Moreover, the appellant herein was neither a party to the earlier writ petition nor has it been shown that the factual matrix or cadre structure involved therein is identical to the present case. Hence, the findings recorded in WPS No. 8189 of 2019 cannot be automatically extended to the controversy involved in the instant matter. 14 The scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited to correction of an error apparent on the face of record. The review petition filed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge was essentially an attempt to reargue the matter on merits, which is impermissible in law. The learned Single Judge, therefore, committed no error in dismissing the review petition vide order dated 28.07.2025. 15 We also find merit in the contention of the respondents that the issue raised in the writ petition pertained to internal administrative policy concerning parity between two engineering wings within the Housing Board. Such matters lie primarily within the domain of the employer, unless shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of statutory provisions. In the present case, no such violation has been established by the appellant. 15 16 On an overall conspectus of facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the orders dated 09.04.2025 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 2865 of 2020 and dated 28.07.2025 passed in REVP No. 153 of 2025 do not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, or perversity warranting interference in exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006. 17 Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu