1 2026:CGHC:23728 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 735 of 2021  Sanjay Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri K.K. Gupta Aged About 53 Years R/o Parizat Shila, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Aadim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Development, Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Prakash Anant Assistant Engineer, Office Of Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Ajeet Kumar Tigga Office Of Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, P.L. For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : None, though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 15.6.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set the impugned order (ANNEXURE Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.06.15 17:03:06 +0530 2 P/1) and further be pleased to direct the dated 23.12.2020 respondent no. 01, to grant promotion to the petitioner in the post of Assistant Engineer from 29.01.2020, with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, any other relief which this Court finds just and proper may also be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed to the post of Sub Engineer vide order dated 18.2.1991 by way of direct recruitment and he became eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer as per Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Rules of 2003’] but the departmental promotion committee failed to consider the name of petitioner and instead names of the juniors to the petitioner were considered applying the provisions of Chhattisgarh Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Class Development Rules, 2006 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Rules of 2006’] and they were promoted to the higher post vide order dated 23.12.2020. He further submits that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is in violation to the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Gautam Chand Baid and others Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in WPS No. 3995 of 2007 wherein a specific reference has been made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Sharad Kumar Shrivastava and other Versus Chhattisgarh State Power Companies Limited and others passed in WA No. 400 of 3 2013 decided on 4.2.2019. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that name of petitioner has already been considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer vide order dated 20.1.2022 thus, this petition has become infructuous. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 5) The issue involved in the present case is as to whether the respondent No. 1 is justified in extending the benefit of reservation in promotion to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Sharad Kumar Shrivastava (supra). 6) Pertinently, Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Sharad Kumar Shrivastava (supra) has categorically held that benefit of reservation cannot be extended in the matter of promotion and similar proposition of law has been enunciated by the co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Gautam Chand Baid (supra). Relevant paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 are reproduced herein-below :- 3. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Sharad Kumar Shrivastava and others vs Chhattisgarh State Power Companies Limited and others, Writ Appeal No.409/2013, decided on 04.02.2019, and other connected matter, has quashed the Rules, 2003 to the extent of providing reservation in promotion to the extent it falls foul of M. Nagaraj and others vs Union of India and others and Jarnail Sigh and others vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others. 4 4. In this petition, an interim order was passed on 01.05.2017 staying the impugned promotion order, yet no one appears for the private respondents to defend the writ petition. 5. In view of the above, considering the law laid down by this Court in the matter of Sharad Kumar Shrivastava (supra) and for the fact that the said part of the Rules, 2003, which has been invoked to accord reservation in promotion for the benefit of respondent Nos.4 to 7, has already been quashed, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned promotion order dated 20.06.2007 is quashed. 7) Taking into consideration the aforesaid factual positions and the legal principles established in the aforesaid judgments, this petition is hereby being disposed directing Secretary, Aadim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Development Department to re-consider the claim of petitioner for promotion from 23.12.2020 or to cancel order of promotion granted in favor of respondents No. 2 and 3 in light of the observations made herein-above. 8) It is made clear that the authority concerned shall complete the entire exercise within period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the interested parties. 9) Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a