1 2025:CGHC:40478 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1259 of 2022 1 - Rajnish Kumar Teekam S/o Shri C. L. Teekam Aged About 45 Years Working As A. D. P. O. (Additional District- Prosecution Officer) Dantewada, Civil And Revenue District- Dantewada Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislative, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Director/ Additional Director Public Prosecution Directorate, 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Deputy Director Public Prosecution, Dantewada, Civil And Revenue District- Dantewada Chhattisgarh. 5 - Superintendent Of Police State Police Academy Chandkhuri, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For petitioner : Mr. P.M. Shriwas, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “(i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record from the respondents Authorities. (ii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the concern respondent -2- authorities may be decide the petitioners pending representations and provide the benefit of promotion for the post of District Prosecution Officer (D.P.O.) (iii) Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favor of the petitioner.” 2. Mr. Shriwas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribes Community and he was appointed to the post of Additional District Prosecution Officer, Dantewada vide order dated 15.11.2010. He would further submit that the representation was moved by the petitioner to provide benefit of promotion to the post of District Prosecution Officer as he has been working in scheduled area. He would contend that the petitioner made repeated representations but till date, no decision has been taken. He would pray for a direction to respondent No.3 to decide pending representations of the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shadangi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr.Shriwas. He would submit that for promotion to the post of District Prosecution Officer, the minimum requirement is 8 years of service on the post of Additional District Prosecution Officer and in the year 2017, the petitioner had not completed 8 years of service, therefore, his name was not considered. He would contend that though the petitioner has claimed promotion since 2017 but has filed this petition in the year 2022, therefore, the petition is hit by the principles of delay and laches. He would contend that the 3 petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 5. Admittedly, in the year 2017, the petitioner had not completed 8 years of service as he was appointed in the year 2010 on the post of Additional District Prosecution Officer but as of now, he has already completed more than 8 years of service, therefore, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion if the petitioner fulfills all requisite criteria for the said post. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha