1 2025:CGHC:8538-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 126 of 2025 Sharad Kumar Bansod S/o Late Makhan Lal Bansod, Aged About 44 Years Presently Posted As Stenographer Grade - Iii, Office Of Project Administrator, Aggregated Tribal Development Project, Mohal-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki, District Mohal-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Schedule Caste Schedule Tribe Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, PO And PS Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Commissioner, Schedule Caste Schedule Tribe Development Block- 4 D, Ground Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Project Administrator, Aggregated Tribal Development Project, Mohal-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, District Mohal-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.). 4 - Giresh Kumar Joshi Stenographer Grade - Ii, Office Of Chhatisgarh State Schedule Tribe Commission, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.02.19 17:06:08 +0530 2 2. The matter has been listed in default as the application for condonation of delay has not been filed. 3. Perusal of the office note shows that the appeal is barred by only 8 days. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the delay of 8 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. In view of the above, defect pointed out by the Registry is overruled. 5. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 6. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s): “i. To kindly set aside the order dated 09.05.2023 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.7699 of 2024 (Sharad Kumar Bansod vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), by the Hon’ble Single Judge vide order dated 28/11/2024. ii. To kindly be pleased to quash the impugned promotion order Dated 18.07.2018 issued by the Commissioner, Schedule Caste Schedule Tribe Development, Raipur (in respect of private respondent). Iii. To kindly any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and 3 circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the appellant.” 7. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.7699 of 2024 (Sharad Kumar Bansod v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed. 8. The case projected by the writ petitioner/appellant before the learned Single Judge is that : i) The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Stenographer Grade-III vide order dated 05.06.2012. His services were regularized vide order dated 13.06.2017 pursuant to the order issued by the Commissioner, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Department. (ii) The State of Chhattisgarh notified the Rules namely, the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Tribes & Scheduled Castes Development Department Subordinate (Class-III) Ministerial, Service Recruitment Rules, 2013 (for short ‘the Rules of 2013’). As per Scheduled IV, the Stenographer Grade-III who has completed 5 years of service would be considered for promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade-II. (iii) The petitioner completed 5 years of service on 04.06.2017 but he was not considered for promotion as per Rules of 2013. 4 (iv) The Department issued a gradation list on 01.04.2017 for the post of Stenographer Grade-III wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No.5 and the name of respondent No.4 was at serial No.7. (v) The Departmental Promotion Committee convened a meeting on 03.07.2018 and in that meeting, respondent No.4 was found fit for promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade- II in the Scheduled Tribes category. (vi) The name of the petitioner was not considered due to the non-availability of his confidential reports for the years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 & 2017, though she also belongs to the Scheduled Tribes category. (vii) The promotion order of respondent No.4 was issued on 18.07.2018 but the name of the petitioner was not considered. 9. Being aggrieved with the action on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.7699 of 2024, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.11.2024. 10. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that 5 the appellant/writ petitioner was eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade-II but his name was not considered on account of the non-availability of the ACRs for the years 2013 to 2017. It has been contended that the respondent authorities ought to have conducted a review DPC after receipt of ACRs of the appellant/writ petitioner for the years 2013 to 2017 for promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade II. The appellant/writ petitioner has completed 5 years of service as required under the Rules of 2013 in the year 2017. Therefore, the actions of the respondents appear to be discriminatory. It has been further contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in not directing the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade II with effect from 18.07.2018 with all consequential benefits, as such, appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set- aside. 12. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and materials available on record. 6 14. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perusing the impugned order as well as relying on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Rajmati Singh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1785, Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak v. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 64 and Bichitrananda Behera v. State of Orissa and others, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 883, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order by observing as follows :- “12. 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 impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in 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 7 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. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case in light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can safely be held that the petitioner has approached this Court after six years and repeated representations neither give rise to nor revive the cause of action, if it had already arisen in the past. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, this petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed on account of delay and laches. No costs. ” 15. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has 8 passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an intra Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned orders. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 16. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu