1 2025:CGHC:52626-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 767 of 2025 Samar Singh Kanwar S/o Phool Singh Kanwar Aged About 42 Years Posted As Assistant Director Fisheries, Janjgir Champa , R/o Village And Post Tuman, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh., ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary , Department Of Agriculture (Fisheries), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Director Of Fisheries Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Mohan Lal Rana, Deputy Director At Machhua Kalyan Board, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. Seema Chandravanshi Assistant Director Of Fisheries, Posted In The Office Of Deputy Director, Fisheries And Training Center, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5. Madhu Xaxa Assistant Director Of Fisheries, Posted In The Office Of Deputy Director , Fisheries And Training Center, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.10.30 10:21:47 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 29.10.2025 1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 4110 of 2021, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioner. 2. The writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:- “3.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the order dated 22/07/2025 passed in WP(S) No.4110/2021. 3.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the appellant from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 3.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authority to consider the name of the appellant for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Fisheries from the post of Assistant Director, Fisheries w.e.f. 05.02.2018 as the appellant is senior to the respondent no. 3 as per gradation on 3 01.04.2013 before the name of the respondent no. 3 and further be pleased to direct the respondents authority to give its consequential benefits including seniority. 3.4. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to not conduct DPC for promotion to the post of Deputy Director considering any other name apart from the appellant till final disposal of this petition. 3.5. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/reliefs in favour of the appellants, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the appellant.” 3. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant was initially appointed as Assistant Fisheries Officer, a Class-III post, on 27.09.2003, with respondents No. 3 to 5, who were ranked below him. However, in the gradation list published on 28.07.2012, the appellant was placed at Sr. No. 62, while respondents No. 3 to 5 were placed higher at Sr. Nos. 59 to 61. As per the Chhattisgarh Fisheries (Gazette) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987, promotions from Class-III to Class-II are to be made based on seniority subject to fitness. The appellant filed W.P.(S) No. 1454/2013 4 seeking correction of his seniority, and the Court directed the authorities to reconsider his claim. Consequently, in the gradation list dated 01.04.2013 (published on 06.10.2018), the appellant was placed at Sr. No. 54, above respondents No. 3 to 5. Despite this, the appellant was bypassed for promotion to Assistant Director in 2010, while junior respondents were promoted. Meanwhile, the Court had also corrected seniority-related promotions of others, including respondent No. 5, in W.P.(S) No. 385/2011. As per the corrected gradation list and service rules, the appellant, being senior to respondents No. 3 to 5, claims entitlement to promotion to Deputy Director w.e.f. 05.02.2018, which he asserts has been wrongfully withheld. The appellant preferred writ petition before the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed on the ground of delay. Thus this appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 and the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “ XXX 8. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. Remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have 5 an impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation, which, in an acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons; such delay does not deserve any indulgence, and on the said ground alone this Court deems it appropriate to dismiss this petition at the very threshold. The doctrine of delay and laches, or for that matter, statutes of limitation, are considered to be statutes of repose and statutes of peace. There must be a lifespan during which a person must approach the court for their remedy. Otherwise, there would be unending uncertainty as to the rights and obligations of the parties. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case in light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of P.S. Sadasivaswamy (supra) and Manoj Kumar Jindal (supra), it is quite vivid that the petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of 3 years. The petitioner utterly failed to explain the delay caused in filing the instant petition. 10. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to entertain the instant petition. 6 11. Accordingly, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that initially, the appellant was appointed to the post of Assistant Fisheries Officer vide order dated 27.09.2003. He would further submit that a gradation list was published by the department on 28.07.2012, and the names of respondents No. 3 to 5, who were junior to the appellant, were placed above the appellant. He would also submit that WPS No. 1454 of 2013 was filed by the appellant, and it was disposed of vide order dated 10.05.2013 with a direction to the authorities to consider the claim of the appellant. Thereafter, the name of the appellant was considered and placed above respondents No. 3 to 5. He would contend that though the appellant was placed above respondents No. 3 to 5, but he was not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Director, Fisheries, whereas respondents No. 3 to 5 were promoted. He would further contend that after obtaining NOC from the department, he appeared in the examination and was appointed to the post of Assistant Director Fisheries. It is stated that vide order dated 05.02.2018, respondent No. 3 was promoted to the post of Deputy Director, Fisheries, who is junior to the appellant in the gradation list and again the appellant was not considered for promotion. Therefore, the appellant preferred the writ petition 7 before the learned Single Judge which was dimissed. Thus this appeal. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submission made. He would submit that the appellant was appointed to the post of Assistant Director, Fisheries on 08.12.2016, and the appellant was eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Fisheries in the year 2018. He would further submit that the appellant preferred the writ petition in the year 2021, after a lapse of 3 years, and the delay has not been explained properly, therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition and the present appeal also deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. Perusal of the records shows that the appellant was initially appointed as Assistant Fisheries Officer, a Class-III post, on 27.09.2003, and at the time of his appointment, he was senior to respondents No. 3 to 5. However, in the gradation list published on 28.07.2012, the appellant was placed at Sr. No. 62, while respondents No. 3 to 5 were placed above him at Sr. Nos. 59 to 61. The appellant challenged this in W.P.(S) No. 1454/2013, and the Court directed the authorities to reconsider his seniority. 8 Pursuant to the direction, the appellant’s name was correctly placed above respondents No. 3 to 5 in the gradation list as on 01.04.2013, published on 06.10.2018. Meanwhile, the appellant was bypassed for promotion to Assistant Director in 2010, whereas respondents No. 3 to 5 were promoted. Subsequently, after obtaining a no-objection certificate from the department, the appellant appeared in the relevant examination and was appointed as Assistant Director on 08.12.2016. He later claimed entitlement to promotion to Deputy Director w.e.f. 05.02.2018, as he was senior to respondents who had already been promoted. However, the appellant approached the Court only in 2021, nearly three years after the alleged cause of action, without providing any satisfactory explanation for the delay. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order dated 22.07.2025, held that such inordinate delay cannot be ignored, as it affects the finality of service matters, ripened rights of other employees, and the administration of justice. The Single Judge rightly observed that doctrines of delay and laches, as well as statutes of limitation, are intended to ensure certainty and repose in service matters. 9. It is the well established principles of law that delay has always been considered vital in service matters especially with regard to promotion. As far back as (1975) 1 SCC 152, P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, it was held that it would 9 be a sound and wise exercise of discretion under Article 226 that the Court should not entertain claims regarding seniority after an approximate period of 6 months from the date of cause of action to prevent clogging the dockets of the Court and which would impede the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances timely. 10. Further, the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti