1 2026:CGHC:6714 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8318 of 2023 1 - Suresh Kumar Mourya S/o. Dhaduram Mourya, Aged About 40 Years Posted As Assistant Grade -3, At District Education Office, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh And Presently Attached At Government Higher Secondary School, Pandaripani, Block Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director, Education Division Bastar (Jagdalpur), Disrict - Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Education Officer, Bastar (Jagdalpur), District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rupendra Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For State : Mr. D. R. Minj, Dy. Advocate General Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/02/2026 1. The present writ petition is being filed seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to convene DPC for promotion to the post of Junior Auditor from the post of Assistant Grade-3 within a stipulated period and may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Auditor from the post of Assistant Grade-3 being legible persons. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioners” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-3 vide order dated 14.07.2003 issued by respondent No.5, the District Education Officer, Bastar (Jagdalpur), District Bastar (C.G.), pursuant to which he joined service and has since been continuously discharging his duties with sincerity and to the complete satisfaction of the authorities, without any complaint and with an unblemished service record; the petitioner is presently posted as 3 Assistant Grade-3 in the District Education Office, Jagdalpur, with his service attached to Government Higher Secondary School, Pandaripani, Block Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.), and despite working on the same post since 2003, he has not been granted any promotion; as per the applicable recruitment and promotion rules, promotion from the post of Assistant Grade-3 to Junior Auditor requires five years’ experience in the feeder cadre and passing of the Accountant Examination, and the petitioner, having completed the requisite service period, cleared the Accountant Examination in the year 2008, which qualification stands duly recorded in his service book, thereby making him fully eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Auditor from the year 2008 onwards, especially when promotional posts are available; however, despite repeated requests and representations made by the petitioner, the respondents have failed to take any steps to consider or grant him promotion; it is further pertinent that one similarly situated employee, namely Lakhan Singh Mandavi, who was appointed by the same appointment order as the petitioner, was subsequently allotted to the newly created District Kondagaon after bifurcation of District Bastar and was granted promotion to the post of Junior Auditor, whereas the petitioner continues to await promotion since 2008; the petitioner has submitted several representations seeking consideration of his case for promotion, but no decision has been taken by the respondents, thereby frustrating his legitimate expectation to be 4 considered for promotion, which, though not a vested right, is a right guaranteed under service jurisprudence; consequently, the continued inaction of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Junior Auditor for an inordinately long period, despite availability of posts and fulfillment of eligibility criteria, has adversely affected his service rights and is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the principles of fairness and equality. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s case for promotion is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the settled principles of law governing service jurisprudence. It is contended that the petitioner has been continuously working on the post of Assistant Grade-3 for an exceptionally long period and, despite fulfillment of all eligibility criteria, the respondents have failed to discharge their statutory and administrative obligation to consider his case for promotion, thereby rendering their conduct illegal and unjust. It is further submitted that even after repeated requests and representations made by the petitioner, the respondents have not granted any promotion from the post of Assistant Grade-3 to the post of Junior Auditor. The persistent inaction of the respondents, despite availability of promotional posts, reflects non-application of mind and amounts to arbitrary exercise of power, which is impermissible under law. Learned counsel would further argue that the petitioner has submitted 5 several representations seeking consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Junior Auditor, however, the same have remained undecided. It is a settled principle of law that though promotion per se may not be a vested right, every eligible employee has a legitimate expectation and a legal right to be fairly and timely considered for promotion. An employee cannot be compelled to continue on the same post indefinitely, particularly when promotional avenues exist and eligibility conditions stand satisfied. In the present case, the petitioner became eligible for promotion as far back as the year 2008, yet no promotion has been granted since then, despite availability of posts, which has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the respondents were duty-bound to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Auditor within a reasonable time. The respondents cannot keep the matter of promotion in abeyance for an indefinite period when vacancies are available and eligible candidates exist. Due to such prolonged inaction, the valuable service rights of the petitioner have been adversely affected, causing stagnation in service and financial as well as career-related hardship. Learned counsel fairly concedes that promotion is not an absolute or automatic right of an employee; however, it is emphatically submitted that the right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules is a fundamental aspect of service law. Denial of such consideration, without any justifiable reason, is violative of Articles 6 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Lastly, it is submitted that the action and conduct of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s case for promotion, despite repeated representations and fulfillment of all eligibility criteria, is ex facie arbitrary, discriminatory, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the petitioner prays for appropriate directions to the respondents to consider and decide his case for promotion to the post of Junior Auditor in accordance with law within a stipulated time frame. 4. Learned State counsel would submit that the allegation of complete inaction on the part of the respondents is incorrect and misleading. It is submitted that the petitioner was, in fact, proposed to be promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II in accordance with the ongoing promotion process initiated by the department. However, the petitioner himself refused to accept the said promotion and categorically stated that since he claims to be eligible for promotion to the higher post of Junior Auditor, he should be granted promotion directly to that post. It is therefore contended that the delay or non-promotion cannot be attributed to the respondents, as the petitioner, by his own conduct, declined the proposed promotion to the immediate next higher post. Hence, the grievance raised by the petitioner alleging arbitrariness and inaction on the part of the State is unfounded and deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and has carefully perused the pleadings and documents placed on record. 7 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the pleadings and documents placed on record, this Court finds that the core issue involved in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Junior Auditor has been duly considered in accordance with the applicable rules and whether the prolonged inaction of the respondent authorities is justified. 7. From the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-3 on 14.07.2003 and has continuously discharged his duties on the said post with an unblemished service record. It is also evident that the recruitment and promotion rules governing the post of Junior Auditor prescribe passing of the “Lekha Parikshan Pariksha” (Accountant Examination) as an essential qualification. The material on record further reveals that the said qualification, along with other eligibility conditions, has been notified in the Gazette Notification dated 28.06.2013. The petitioner has successfully cleared the said examination on 06.06.2008, and the said qualification stands duly entered in his service record. 8. On the basis of the above, this Court is of the considered view that, from a plain perusal of the record, the petitioner fulfills all the requisite eligibility conditions for consideration to the post of Junior Accounts Officer/Junior Auditor. His eligibility is not only supported by the service record but also by the statutory rules and the Gazette Notification dated 28.06.2013. Therefore, the 8 contention of the petitioner that he is eligible in all respects for the said post deserves acceptance. So far as the submission of the learned State counsel is concerned, namely that the petitioner was proposed to be promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II but declined the same on the ground that he is eligible for the higher post of Junior Auditor, this Court finds that such a circumstance, by itself, cannot extinguish or defeat the petitioner’s right to be considered for promotion to a post for which he is otherwise eligible under the rules. 9. It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that although promotion is not a matter of right, an eligible employee has an indefeasible right to be considered for promotion in accordance with law. Refusal to accept promotion to an intermediate post does not absolve the respondent authorities of their obligation to consider the case of the petitioner for the higher post, if the rules so permit and the eligibility conditions are satisfied. In the facts of the present case, the prolonged non-consideration of the petitioner’s case, despite his having cleared the requisite examination as far back as on 06.06.2008 and despite availability of the promotional post, cannot be said to be justified. The respondent authorities were duty-bound to take a reasoned decision on the petitioner’s claim for promotion within a reasonable time, which admittedly has not been done. 10. Accordingly, this Court holds that the petitioner is eligible in all respects for consideration to the post of Junior Auditor in terms of 9 the Gazette Notification dated 28.06.2013 and the applicable promotion rules. Consequently, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Auditor in light of the fact that he has cleared the prescribed examination on 06.06.2008 and fulfills the other eligibility conditions, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a reasonable period. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE