1 2025:CGHC:56933-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 403 of 2024 Kamlesh Prajapati S/o Ram Janam Prajapati Aged About 32 Years Occupation - Service (Ag-2), Posted At Aklabya Avasiya Vidyalay Manipur, District Sruguja, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribes Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Department Of Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribes Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector (Tribal Development) And President District Label Chhattisgarh Adim Jati Kalyan Avasiya Evam Ashram Shaikshanik Sansthan Samiti Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 2 4 - Assistant Commissioner And Secretary District Label Chhattisgarh Adim Jati Kalyan Avasiya Evam Ashram Shikshanik Sansthan Samiti Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 5 - Principal Aklabya Avasiya Vidyalay Manipur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 6 - Gyanesh Kumar Sinha S/o N.K.P. Sinha Assistant Grade Ii Eklavya Adarsh Avasiya Vidyalay Kamleshwarpur Block Mainpat, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (As Per Honble Court Order Dated 17-04- 2025) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri G.P. Mathur, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General. For Respondent No. 6. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24.11.2025 1. Heard Shri G.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Shri Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents as well as Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. 3 2. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner assailing the order dated 16.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1384/2024, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/ petitioner came to be disposed of. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the writ Court. 3. The brief facts reflected from the record are that the petitioner was appointed on 21.04.2015 as AG-III thereafter as per Recruitment Rules known as Eklavya Adarsh Avasiya Vidyalay Sewa Bhartu Rule 2007, the posts have also been sanctioned i.e. non-teaching employees which consist of Assistant Grade-II, OfÏce Assistant, Staff Nurse and Data Entry Operator. 8 posts of Assistant Grade-III was sanctioned in the pay scale of Assistant Grade-III was Rs. 3050-75-3950-80. The qualification for promotion on the post of Assistant Grade-III to Assistant Grade-II is the working experience of five years on the post of Assistant Grade-III and should have knowledge of computer. The petitioner has completed requisite qualification as provided in the Scheduled-2 in the Recruitment Rules, therefore, he was considered eligible for promotion. Accordingly, DPC was conducted on 19.05.2020 which consists of the then Additional Collector, Assistant Commissioner Triable and Principal of School. 4 Subsequently, Department Promotion Committee meeting was held on 19.05.2000 and the name of the petitioner was considered by the Committee and the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-II vide order dated 24.07.2020 as he has secured 5 marks with A grading for last five years thereafter, his promotion order was issued on 24.07.2020. In pursuance of promotion order, the petitioner joined the services of Assistant Grade-II and discharging his duty. Thereafter, respondent No. 6, who was senior to the petitioner for 3 months has made representation pointing out the shortcomings of the DPC committee which was considered by the respondents. The respondents have considered the ACR of respondent No. 6 for five years wherein he was found fit, since there was only one promotion post was available, as such the respondents vide order dated 06.10.2023 cancelled the promotion order of petitioner and he was again posted as Assistant Grade-III. Being aggrieved with the cancellation order, the petitioner preferred the writ petition which was disposed of vide impugned order dated 16.04.2024. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the Writ petition, by the order impugned and has observed as under:- 5 “xxx xxx xxx 5. Considering the facts of the case and the record of the DPC it is quite vivid that the petitioner is junior to respondent No. 6 as the petitioner was appointed on 21.04.2015 and the respondent No. 6 was appointed on 24.01.2015 which shows that respondent No. 6 is three months senior to the petitioner and the fact that only one post is available, as such the respondents have taken right steps to remove the anomaly created while considering the case of the petitioner, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the promotion order issued in favour of respondent No.6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. 6. So far as the payment paid to the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner resumed the duty of Assistant Grade-II, in view of promotion order was issued in his favour, therefore, it can not be said that any fault has been committed on the part of the petitioner while getting promotion on Assistant Grade- II, considering the fact that the respondents are restrained from recovering excess payment made to 6 the petitioner, it is also directed that as and when the vacancies are available, the case of the petitioner shall be considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Grade-II." 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1384/2024 is wholly illegal and contrary to the governing Rules. It is contended that the service conditions are regulated by the Eklavya Adarsh Awasiya Vidhyalay Sewa Bharti Niyam, 2007, under which only Assistant Grade-III employees with five years of clerical experience are eligible for promotion to Assistant Grade-II; however, the private respondent, being a Store Keeper, is out of cadre, performs no clerical work and cannot be treated at par with Assistant Grade-III, and therefore his claim for promotion was rightly not considered. It is further submitted that the private respondent, despite being aware of his ineligibility, raised objections only after three years, which is hopelessly barred by delay and could not have been entertained. The appellant had already been granted confirmed promotion and had discharged duties for more than three years, thereby acquiring a vested right which could not be taken away without issuance of a show- cause notice; the committee’s action and the learned Single 7 Judge’s order suffer from violation of principles of natural justice. It is lastly submitted that the appellant reserves the liberty to raise additional grounds and place all relevant documents at the time of final hearing. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel would oppose the submission and would submit that it is not in dispute that opportunity of hearing has not been granted to the petitioner. Since the facts are clear merely issuance of notice will be formality as such issuance of notice is not required. Even though, the opportunity of hearing was not extended to the petitioner still the record itself speaks that there was some irregularity committed while conducting the DPC and considering the name of the petitioner and only his name was considered and inadvertently name of respondent No. 6 was ignored for promotion and this factual matrix was brought on record by way of representation filed by the respondent No.6 then the respondents conducted the Review DPC. He would further submit that the petitioner was junior to the respondent No.6. and respondent No. 6 was found fit for promotion as he secured A marks in 5 years. To substantiate his submission, DPC record was placed on record by the State, which clearly speaks that some irregularities have been committed while considering the case of respondent No. 6. 8 The learned Single Judge has correctly upheld the departmental decision. Hence, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 would adopt the aforesaid arguments of the State. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced and on perusal of the material on record, this Court finds no error in the order of the learned Single Judge warranting interference in appeal. The learned Single Judge has rightly held, on the basis of the DPC record, that the appellant is admittedly junior to respondent No. 6, the appellant having been appointed on 21.04.2015 whereas respondent No. 6 was appointed earlier on 24.01.2015, making him senior by about three months. In the backdrop of availability of only one promotional post, the authorities were justified in rectifying the anomaly and granting promotion to the senior- most eligible employee. The view of the learned Single Judge that no interference was called for in the promotion order issued in favour of respondent No. 6 is based on correct appreciation of facts and the service records. The directions issued regarding non-recovery of excess payment from the appellant, as well as 9 consideration of his case for promotion as and when vacancies arise, have also adequately safeguarded his interests. No perversity or illegality is demonstrated in the impugned order. The appellant utterly failed to establish his case by placing sufÏcient and cogent materials. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is junior to respondent No.6 and he cannot claim the benefit of promotion over and above the respondent No.6 which has been granted to him owing to some clerical error. 9. 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. 10. The writ appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib