1 2026:CGHC:22827 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3470 of 2022 1 - Amarnath Jain S/o Gaya Ram Jain Aged About 52 Years Working As Field Officer/chief Instructor Jila Antyavasayi Sahkari Vikas Samiti Maryadit Dhamtari (C.G.). 2 - Jeevanram Khutte S/o Late Nanakiram Khutte Aged About 56 Years Working As Field Officer/chief Instructor Jila Antyavasayi Sahkari Vikas Samiti Maryadit Naya Raipur(C.G.). 3 - Shrikant Jha S/o N.N. Jha Aged About 54 Years Working As Field Officer/chief Instructor Jila Antyavasayi Sahkari Vikas Samiti Maryadit, Ambikapur Sarguja (C.G.). 4 - Shyamlal Dash S/o Nani Gopal Dash Aged About 54 Years Working As Field Officer/chief Instructor Jila Antyavasayi Sahkari Vikas Samiti Maryadit Durg (C.G.). 5 - Kamlesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Baliram Dewangan Aged About 53 Years Working As Field Officer/chief Instructor Jila Antyavasayi Sahkari Vikas Samiti Maryadit Korea (C.G.). 6 - Om Prakash Sahu S/o Ram Prasad Sahu Aged About 52 Years Working As Field Officer/chief Instructor Jila Antyavasayi Sahkari Vikas Samiti Maryadit Balrampur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Antyavasai Sahakari Vitta Evum Vikas Nigam ( A Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Undertaking S.T. S.C. O.B.C. And Minority Development) Through Its Managing Director- Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Secretary State Government Of Chhattisgarh, Aadim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Commissioner Aadim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas Vibhag, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.). 4 - Ku. Rashmii Gupta Presently Posted As In-Charge Manager- Vyavsayik Prashikshan Kendra, Raipur And Promoted As Manager Vyavsayik Prashikshan Kendra, Raipur (C.G.). 2 5 - Smt. Nidhi Shinde Presently Posted As Field Officer- Zila Samiti Korba, And Promoted As Executive Officer, Zila Samiti Korba (C.G.) 6 - Shri Navin Kumar Sharma Presently Posted As Field Officer, Nigam Office, Naya Raipur And Promoted As Assistant General Manager, Nigam Office, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 7 - Shri Ghanshyam Prasad Bramhe Presently Posted As Field Officer, Zila Samiti Narayanpur And Promoted As Executive Officer, Zila Samiti Narayanpur (C.G.) 8 - Shri Praveen Lata Presently Posted As Field Officer, Zila Samiti Bemetara And Promoted As Executive Officer, Zila Samiti Bemetara (C.G.) 9 - Shri Sandip Kumar Shukla Presently Posted As Field Officer, Zila Samiti Janjgir Champa And Promoted As Executive Officer, Zila Samiti Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 10 - Shri Suresh Kumar Verma Presently Posted As Field Officer, Zila Samiti Kanker And Promoted As Executive Officer, Zila Samiti Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhaskar Payasi, Advocate For Respondent No.1 For Respondents No.2 & 3 For Respondents No.4 to 10 : : : Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Deputy Government Advocate Ms. Sonya Das, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14/05/2026 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.i. To call for the entire records available in the office of the Respondents pertaining to the case of petitioners. 3 ii. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned promotion order dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure P/1). iii. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to be directed the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Executive Officer w.e.f. his immediate junior was promoted with all benefits of promotional post. iv. Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Mr. Payasi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that initially the petitioners were appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-III and subsequently, they were promoted to the post of AG-II and thereafter to the post of Field Officer. He would further submit that the private respondents No. 4 to 10 were appointed to the post of Field Officer pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.03.2012. He would further submit that in the gradation list published on 01.04.2016, the petitioners were placed below the private respondents and thereafter, the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 11.05.2022. The private respondents were considered for promotion to the post of Executive Officer vide order dated 25.04.2022 pursuant to gradation list published on 01.04.2016. He would submit that the services of the petitioners and private respondents are governed by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Antyavasai Sahakari Vitta Evum Vikas Nigam Maryadit Karmachari Sewa Niyam (for short, the Service Rule). He would refer to Rule 13(5) 4 of the Service Rule, which states that if name of a senior employee is not considered for promotion, the Corporation has to record the reasons in writing and the date of confirmation in cadre shall be decisive to reckon seniority. If two employees are confirmed on the same date, seniority will be decided by: their seniority in the previous lower category/post. If that is also the same, then seniority will depend on: total length of service. If length of service is also equal, then: the older employee will be senior. If age is also the same, then: the appointing authority will decide seniority based on merit and efficiency. He would contend that as the petitioners were appointed and confirmed prior to the private respondents, therefore, their names ought to have been placed above the private respondents in the gradation list. He would further contend that the DPC failed to consider Rule 13(5) of the Rules while recommending the names of respondents No. 4 to 10 for promotion to the next higher post. He would further contend that the promotion order issued in favour of respondents No. 4 to 10 may be quashed and respondent No. 1 may be directed to consider the names of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Executive Officer. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 would oppose and submit that the seniority list was published on 01.04.2021, but no objection was raised by the petitioners and the 5 Departmental Promotion Committee considered the names of the deserving candidates for promotion to the post of Executive Officer strictly in accordance with the seniority list. She would submit that instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Ms. Das, learned counsel appearing for private respondents No. 4 to 10 would submit that they were promoted vide order dated 25.04.2022 and they are still working on the promoted post and, after a lapse of 4 years, it would not be appropriate to unsettle their settled position. 5. Mr. Saini, learned State counsel would submit that there is a dispute between the petitioners and respondent No. 1. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed to the post of AG-III and were promoted to the post of AG-II and thereafter to the post of Field Officer. 8. The private respondents were directly appointed to the post of Field Officer and they were confirmed on the said post vide order dated 23.03.2016; whereas, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Field Officer in the year 2013, therefore, the petitioners are senior to the private respondents. 9. The representations made by the petitioners were rejected vide order dated 12.08.2021 and thereafter, WPS No. 6005 of 2021 was filed 6 assailing the order dated 12.08.2021 and the gradation list dated 01.04.2017. 10.Rule 13(5) of the Service Rules is reproduced as under:- “नियम 13.5. सम ቦኔ णी म वरीयता का नि቗ኋरीणी उस ቦኔ णी म स्थाई कारीणी का निका का आ቗ኋरी परी होगा। यनि  अथाव उसस अधि቗ኋका कामचारीरी एका ቦኔ णी म एका हो निताधिथा का स्प्ቖ उቤኔ ख हो' निकाय गाय हो ता उस ቝኌस्थानिता म उका वरिरी्቗ता का ओंकाल तात्काल प.वगाता ቦኔ णी म उका स्थाईकारीणी का निका का आ቗ኋरी परी जहो स उका प्ቐनिता वताम ቦኔ णी म का गाई था निकाय जव गा। जब  य उधि቗ኋका कामचारिरीय2 का निवनि3्ቐ ቦኔ निणीय2 म स्थाईकारीणी का निताधिथा 3 एका हो ता उस ቝኌस्थानिता म उका वरीयता उका स वकाल का अवधि቗ኋ का आ቗ኋरी परी नि቗ኋरिरीता का जव गा। यनि स वकाल का अवधि቗ኋ 3 सम हो ता उस ቝኌस्थानिता म वरीयता का नि቗ኋरीणी आय4 का आ቗ኋरी परी निकाय जव गा। सम आय4 हो परी वरिरी्቗ता निय4्ሹकाता अधि቗ኋकारी ቛኋरी यग्यता एव कायका4 शलता का आ቗ኋरी परी नि቗ኋरिरीता का जव गा।” 11. Bare perusal of the above quoted Rule, it is clear that seniority shall be determined primarily on the basis of the date of confirmation in the cadre, and in case of equality, by the date of confirmation in the previous cadre, length of service, age, merit and efficiency, but in the present case, juniors to the petitioners were granted promotion without considering the petitioners’ seniority. 12.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Another vs. Narendra Singh, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 750 held that even if an employee was wrongly promoted due to a mistake of the Department, such an error can always be corrected in accordance with law. The relevant paragraph 32 is reproduced herein below:- 7 “32. It is true that the mistake was of the Department and the respondent was promoted though he was not eligible and qualified. But, we cannot countenance the submission of the respondent that the mistake cannot be corrected. Mistakes are mistakes and they can always be corrected by following due process of law. In Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Anr. v. T.K. Suryanarayan & Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 766, it was held that if erroneous promotion is given by wrongly interpreting the rules, the employer cannot be prevented from applying the rules rightly and in correcting the mistake. It may cause hardship to the employees but a court of law cannot ignore Statutory Rules.” 13.In the present case, the petitioners who were senior to the private respondents deprived promotion to the post of Executive Officer though they were eligible; the authorities concerned have ignored Rule 13(5) of the Rules and granted promotion to the private respondents to the post of Executive Officer. 14.Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners were appointed to the post of Field Officer vide order dated 12.12.2013, whereas private respondents were appointed and confirmed vide order dated 23.03.2016 w.e.f. 01.03.2015; thus, certainly, the petitioners should have been placed above the private respondents in the gradation list. 15.Respondent No.1, while considering the names of the private respondents for promotion to the post of Executive Officer, failed to consider the relevant Rule 13(5) of the Rules, and this fact is evident from the perusal of the minutes of the DPC Annexure R/1, wherein 8 recommendation for promotion was made simply on the basis of the seniority list. 16.Be that as it may, as respondents No. 4 to 10 were promoted to the post of Executive Officer vide order dated 25.04.2022, the said order cannot be interfered with, but at the same time, rights of the petitioners cannot be ignored as they were eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Officer along with the private respondents, therefore, respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the names of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Executive Officer and shall grant all benefits attached thereto w.e.f. 25.04.2022. 17.Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent No.1 is directed to convene review DPC and grant promotion to the petitioners in accordance with the Law. 18. Entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim