1 2026:CGHC:13839 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5953 of 2017 1 - Sandeep Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri D.P.Gupta, Aged About 49 Years Posted As Registrar, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Tribunal, Mungeli Naka, Opposite Luthra Hospital, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, R/o A/67, Surya Apartments, Katora Taalab, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Co-Operative Society Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Registrar, Co-Operative Society, Block-B, Second And Third Floor, Vibhagadhyash Karyalaya, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - State Public Service Commission, Through Its Chairman, Shankar Nagar Road, Bhagat Singh Square, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kamal Nayaran Kande, Managing Director On Deputation, Bhoramdev Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana Maryadit, Kawardha, District Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/s : Shri Vijay Chawla, Advocate holding the brief of Ms. Naushina Ali, Advocate. NIRMALA RAO 2 For Respondents/ State : Shri Abhuday Tripathi, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23 .03.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1.This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the case of the petitioners from the possession of the respondents, for its kind perusal. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 16.08.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent No.1. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to take action against the Respondent No.1 and 2 for harassing the petitioner by passing the impugned order and further be pleased to award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 14.12.2011. He would submit that he completed three years of qualifying service for promotion to the post of Joint Registrar on 13.12.2014. However, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened on 3.12.2014 for promotion to the post of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the name of the petitioner was considered therein. He would contend that the order of promotion was issued on 19.5.2015 and pursuant to said order, the petitioner joined the services. He would further submit that the order of promotion was 3 cancelled by the respondent authorities vide order dated 16.8.2017 (Annexure-P/1). He would submit that an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 10.11.2017. He would contend that as the petitioner completed three years of qualifying service for the post of Joint Registrar on 13.12.2014 but till date, the name of the petitioner has not been considered for promotion to the post of Joint Registrar. It is also contended that the petitioner has completed qualifying service on 1st January, 2014 and same has also been accepted by the respondent authorities. He would submit that the order of cancellation of promotion dated 16.8.2017 may be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the post of Joint Registrar, as he had not completed the requisite qualifying service of three years on the post of Deputy Registrar at the relevant time, therefore, the promotion granted to the petitioner was rightly cancelled vide order dated 16.8.2017. He would submit that by virtue of an interim order, the petitioner is still working on the post of Joint Registrar. He would submit that as the petitioner was not eligible for promotion at the relevant time, the present petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner completed three years of qualifying service for promotion to the post of Joint Registrar on 13.12.2014 whereas the DPC was convened on 3.12.2014 i.e. prior to completion of the requisite qualifying service. Consequently, the promotion order 4 passed in favour of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 16.8.2017. As the petitioner has already completed the requisite qualifying service on the post of Deputy Registrar, he has become eligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher post in accordance with the applicable rules. 6. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation before respondent No.1 within a period of 30 days from today and in turn, the said authority shall consider and decide the same within a further period of 90 days. The interim order granted earlier shall continue for a period of 120 days or till the representation is decided, whichever is earlier. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi