1 / 6 2026:CGHC:23988 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 159 of 2024 1 - Goverdhan Korram S/o Sukhuram Korram, Aged About 41 Years Posted As Head Constable At Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G. 2 - Giteshwar Kuldeep S/o Shri Shyamlal Kuldeep, Aged About 39 Years Posted As Head Constable At Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G. 3 - Arju Markam, S/o Late Shri Pran Singh Markam, Aged About 39 Years Posted As Head Constable At Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G. 4 - Jitendra Dahre, S/o Late Ramchandra Aged About 36 Years Posted As Head Constable At Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G. 5 - Narendra Dev Manjhi, S/o Shri Harishchandra Manjhi, Aged About 36 Years Posted As Head Constable At Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G. 6 - Hiteshwari Chelak, W/o Shri Arjun Singh, Aged About 37 Years Posted As Head Constable At Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G. 7 - Lakhmu Ram Vatti, S/o Late Shri Mangalram Vatti, Aged About 40 Years Posted As Head Constable At Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G. 8 - Dinesh Kuldeep, S/o Shri Sangram Kuldeep Aged About 38 Years Posted As Head Constable At Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G. 9 - Balram Netam, S/o Late Shri Mohan Ram Netam, Aged About 48 Years Posted As Head Constable At Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G. 10 - Umesh Kumar Chandel S/o Shri Nathuram Aged About 38 Years Posted As Head Constable At Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur, C.G. 11 - Malik Ram Lahre, S/o Shri Hiccharam Lahre, Aged About 41 Years Posted As Head Constable At Sukma, District Sukma, C.G. 12 - Madkam Kala, S/o Madkam Bhima, Aged About 34 Years Posted As Head Constable At Sukma, District Sukma, C.G ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.06.18 11:30:30 +0530 2 / 6 13 - Gwal Singh Usendi S/o Late Shri Dashrath Usendi, Aged About 52 Years Posted As Head Constable At Sukma, District Sukma, C.G. 14 - Rameshwar Salam, S/o Late Shri Munshiram Salam, Aged About 47 Years Posted As Head Constable At Sukma, District Sukma, C.G 15 - Manglu Ram Dugga, S/o Shri Chamra Ram Dugga, Aged About 48 Years Posted As Head Constable At Sukma, District Sukma, C.G. 16 - Nakul Say Paikra S/o Late Shri Jageshwar Say Paikra, Aged About 48 Years Posted As Head Constable At Sukma, District Sukma, C.G. 17 - Jitendra Yadav S/o Shriram Yadav, Aged About 36 Years Posted As Head Constable At Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, C.G. 18 - Kirtan Singh Mandavi, S/o Late Shri Labharam Mandavi, Aged About 38 Years Posted As Head Constable At Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, C.G. 19 - Mandhar Netam, S/o Late Shri Chetman Netam, Aged About 56 Years Posted As Head Constable At Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, C.G. 20 - Sanjay Bisen S/o Shri Raghunandan Bisen Aged About 38 Years Posted As Head Constable At Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, C.G. 21 - Siyarma Marapi, S/o Shri Mangal Singh Marapi, Aged About 38 Years Posted As Head Constable At Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, C.G. 22 - Singluram Korram, S/o Late Shri Sukalu Ram Korram, Aged About 52 Years Posted As Head Constable At Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, C.G. 23 - Rajiv Kumar Nishad S/o Shri Dukhesingh Nishad, Aged About 37 Years Posted As Head Constable At Bijapur, District Bijapur, C.G. 24 - Pradeep Kumar Kartami, S/o Sonsay Katami, Aged About 37 Years Posted As Head Constable At Bijapur, District Bijapur, C.G. 25 - Arjun Manjhi, S/o Shri Jaysingh Manjhi, Aged About 38 Years Posted As Head Constable At Bijapur, District Bijapur, C.G. 26 - Thansingh Deshmukh, S/o Shri Lakhanlal Deshmukh, Aged About 39 Years Posted As Head Constable At Dantewada, District Dantewada, C.G. 27 - Ashish Kumar Nag, S/o Vikram Singh Nag, Aged About 41 Years Posted As Head Constable At Dantewada, District Dantewada, C.G 28 - Sujit Devnath, S/o Late Shri Harkant Devnath Aged About 43 Years Posted As Head Constable At Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, C.G. 3 / 6 29 - Gulab Ram S/o Somaru Ram Mandavi, Aged About 54 Years Posted As Head Constable At Sukma, District Sukma, C.G. 30 - Gilgiccha Kishore, S/o Shri Say Anna, Aged About 42 Years Posted As Head Constable At Bijapur, District Bijapur, C.G. ... Petitioners versus 1 - Mr. Petitioners versus 1 - Mr. Arun Dev Gautam Through- The Secretary, Department of Home Affairs (Police), New Raipur, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Civil And Revenue, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mr. Ashok Juneja, Director General of Police Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Mr. P. Sunderraj, Inspector General of Police Bastar Range, Jagdalpur, District Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 16/06/2026 1. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 06.10.2023 passed in WPS No. 4243/2023, as subsequently clarified vide order dated 02.11.2023 passed in MCC No. 631/2023. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioners, who were working as Head Constables, had earlier approached this Court by filing WPS No. 4243/2023 seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector on the basis of a select/fit list. The said writ petition was disposed of on 4 / 6 06.10.2023 in the light of the judgment rendered in WPS No. 5405/2021. Subsequently, MCC No. 631/2023 was filed for correction of an inadvertent reference to the post of "Sub-Inspector" and by order dated 02.11.2023 it was clarified that the petitioners' claim pertained to promotion to the post of "Assistant Sub-Inspector". 3. The grievance of the petitioners in the present contempt petition is that despite the aforesaid orders, the respondents failed to grant promotion to the petitioners and thereby committed contempt of the orders passed by this Court. 4. In response, the respondents have filed a detailed return. In paragraphs 5 to 9 thereof, the respondents have explained the factual and administrative position governing the promotion process wherein it has been specifically stated that promotions from the post of Head Constable to Assistant Sub-Inspector conducted in the year 2018 were governed by the earlier SOP No. 24/02, whereas the present selection process is regulated by the subsequently implemented SOP No. 25/2021. The respondents have further stated that the petitioners participated in the departmental promotion examination and their names appeared in the fit list issued on 30.09.2021. However, under SOP No. 25/2021, the fit list remained valid only till issuance of a fresh fit list or for a period of eighteen months, whichever was earlier. Consequently, the validity of the fit list stood exhausted on 31.03.2023. 5. The respondents have further pointed out that as on 31.12.2021 there were 249 vacant posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector in Bastar Range. After 5 / 6 accounting for the quota reserved for out-of-turn promotions, promotions were granted to eligible Head Constables against available vacancies and promotion orders for 238 Head Constables were issued on 16.12.2021. It has further been explained that certain promotion orders were withheld owing to pending disciplinary proceedings and, upon expiry of the punishment period, promotions were subsequently granted to such employees. It has also been stated that during the year 2022, available vacancies were duly filled and promotion orders were issued against the vacancies then existing. The return further discloses that thereafter no further vacancies were available till 31.03.2023, i.e., the date on which the validity of the fit list expired. According to the respondents, since no vacancies were available during the subsistence of the fit list and the fit list itself expired on 31.03.2023, no further promotion orders could legally be issued from the said fit list. The respondents have also stated that the entire factual position was duly documented and communicated to the Police Headquarters vide memorandum dated 26.03.2024. 6. On perusal of the order dated 06.10.2023 passed in WPS No. 4243/2023 read with the order dated 02.11.2023 passed in MCC No. 631/2023, this Court finds that the direction was to consider and take necessary steps for issuance of promotion in accordance with the applicable policy decision. The orders did not contain an unconditional or absolute direction mandating immediate promotion of the petitioners irrespective of the governing rules, availability of vacancies or validity of the fit list. 7. The scope of contempt jurisdiction is well settled. In proceedings for contempt, the Court is required to ascertain whether there has been a 6 / 6 willful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by the Court. Contempt jurisdiction is not intended to adjudicate disputed questions of fact nor to determine fresh rights of the parties. If compliance is shown to have been attempted and the authority places a bona fide interpretation of the order or demonstrates the existence of administrative or legal impediments, contempt jurisdiction ordinarily would not be invoked. 8. The explanation furnished by the respondents in paragraphs 5 to 9 of the return demonstrates that the matter was examined in the light of SOP No. 25/2021, the availability of vacancies and the validity period of the fit list. The respondents have taken a categorical stand that the fit list expired on 31.03.2023 and that no vacancies remained available thereafter for granting promotion from the said fit list. Whether such stand is legally sustainable or whether the petitioners are otherwise entitled to any substantive relief are questions which may be agitated in appropriate independent proceedings. However, the same cannot be adjudicated in contempt jurisdiction. 9. This Court is satisfied that the order passed by this Court in WPS No.4243 of 2023 and the material placed on record does not establish any willful, deliberate or intentional disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. Accordingly, the contempt is purged and the rule is discharged. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu