1 2026:CGHC:2556 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4025 of 2023 1 - Dr. Arundhati Singh Parihar Excavation Assistant Directorate Culture And Archeology, Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Seema Tiwari Technical Assistant (Writing) Directorate Culture And Archeology, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Culture, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Culture, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Public Service Commission Through Secretary North Block, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Akhil Kumar Samantray, Advocate For State : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A. G. For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Pratik Vishwakarma, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 15/01/2026 1. The present writ petition is being filed challenging the impugned Advertisement No. 853 / 105 / Advertisement / 2020 dated 24.05.2023 issued by the Public Service Commission on the requisition of the Department of Culture & Archaeology, whereby applications have been invited to fill the posts of Archaeological Officer, Epigraphist, Numismatist, Archaeologist and Curator by way of direct recruitment, seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire record relating to the petitioners for kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioners representation and the proposal made by the directorate culture & archeology providing promotional avenue to the petitioners who are working in the department for last 15 years without any promotion. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the concerned respondent no.4 not to proceed further in the direct recruitment process as advertised in 853/105/advertisement/2020 dated 24.05,2023 and advertisement no.07/2023/examination/24.05.2023. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction that the Respondent No.1 to fill up the post of archeological officer, epigraphist, archeologist, 3 numismatist, archive officer and curator by promotion from the feeder cadre. 10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit according to the facts & circumstances of the case may also be granted” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that petitioner No.1 has been working as an Excavation Assistant in the Directorate of Culture & Archaeology since 02.09.2008 and petitioner No.2 has been working as a Technical Assistant (Writer) since 14.05.2008 in the same department. After the formation of the State of Chhattisgarh, the State initially adopted the Madhya Pradesh Archaeology, Archives and Museum (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1998, which provided ample promotional avenues; however, the subsequently notified Recruitment Rules, 2020 drastically reduced promotional posts, adversely affecting the feeder cadre. The posts of Archaeological Officer, Archaeologist, Numismatist, Epigraphist and Curator remained vacant for more than 20 years, during which period the petitioners and similarly placed employees discharged the duties of the said posts. Despite repeated representations and proposals sent by the Directorate recommending that these posts be filled by promotion, the same were ignored, and instead, requisition was sent to the Public Service Commission for direct recruitment, resulting in issuance of the impugned advertisement dated 24.05.2023. The petitioners possess the requisite qualifications and more than 15 years of 4 relevant experience, far exceeding the eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement, yet their legitimate promotional rights have been illegally and arbitrarily denied, giving rise to the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that promotion is an essential condition of service and the employer-State is constitutionally obliged to provide reasonable promotional avenues to its employees. The prolonged inaction and callousness of the respondents in not creating or providing any opportunity of promotion to the petitioners is arbitrary, unreasonable and unsustainable in law. It is further submitted that the respondents have adopted a discriminatory approach inasmuch as certain posts, such as the post of Publication Officer, are filled by 100% promotion from the feeder cadre, whereas similarly situated employees in other equivalent categories have been denied any promotional avenue. Such hostile discrimination is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submits that the respondents have completely ignored the undisputed fact that the petitioners have been continuously working in the Directorate of Culture & Archaeology since the year 2008 and possess more than 15 years of experience. The petitioners have also been discharging the duties and responsibilities of the posts now sought to be filled by direct recruitment, as the said posts were lying vacant for more than two decades. It is further contended that the petitioners, by virtue of 5 their long experience and familiarity with the departmental functioning, would perform far more efficiently if promoted, as compared to fresh recruits. Denial of promotion despite availability of experienced manpower not only causes grave prejudice to the petitioners but also adversely affects the overall efficiency of the department. Learned counsel submits that it is the constitutional obligation of the State to frame recruitment rules which ensure equal opportunity and fairness to all employees working within the same establishment. The recruitment rules, insofar as they fail to provide any promotional avenue to the petitioners, are manifestly unfair, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that when similarly placed Class-II posts, such as Publication Officer, are filled by promotion or deputation from the feeder cadre, there is no reasonable justification for excluding other equivalent Class-II posts from the same mode of recruitment. Such selective application of recruitment policy is arbitrary and discriminatory. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents have illegally ignored the well-considered proposals sent by the Directorate of Culture & Archaeology, which categorically recommended filling up the posts of Archaeological Officer, Archaeologist, Epigraphist, Numismatist, Archive Officer and Curator by promotion, considering that the petitioners had been performing the duties of the said posts for more than 12 years. The Directorate, being the Head of the Department, was best suited to assess the 6 organizational requirements, and non-consideration of its proposal is bad in law. It is further submitted that recruitment rules must withstand the test of fairness, and any rule or executive action which deprives a class of employees of equal promotional opportunity is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel further submits that even as per the impugned advertisement, a minimum experience of three years in the field of archaeology and museum is required, whereas the petitioners possess more than 15 years of relevant experience and have performed all duties attached to the advertised posts. Ignoring such experience and resorting to direct recruitment has caused grave injustice to the petitioners. Lastly, it is submitted that despite repeated representations made by the petitioners, the respondents failed to exercise the statutory and administrative powers vested in them and arbitrarily rejected the proposal for creation of posts and promotional avenues. Such non-exercise of power and arbitrary action on the part of the respondents is illegal, unjust and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 5. Learned State counsel, at the outset, submits that the the present writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioners were appointed on different dates and are working on different posts, namely, petitioner No.1 as Excavation Assistant since 02.09.2008 and Petitioner No.2 as Technical Assistant (Writing) since 7 14.05.2008. Their respective promotional posts are also distinct and governed by separate considerations. Therefore, the petition suffers from misjoinder of causes of action, as two independent and unrelated claims have been impermissibly clubbed together in a single petition. It is further submitted that the writ petition is premature and devoid of any cause of action. The post of Archaeologist, which has been advertised vide advertisement dated 22.06.2023, is required to be filled by direct recruitment strictly in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Directorate of Archaeology, Archives, Museum, Official Language and Culture Class-I and Class-II Service Recruitment Rules, 2020. Since the recruitment has been initiated strictly as per the statutory rules, the petitioners have no enforceable legal right to challenge the same. Learned State Counsel submits that after the formation of the State of Chhattisgarh, the Directorate of Culture initially adopted the Madhya Pradesh Archaeology, Archives and Museum (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1998, which remained in force till the year 2020. Subsequently, the Recruitment Rules, 2020 came into effect on 19.03.2020. There is no substantial change between the Rules of 1998 and 2020, except for minor modifications such as reduction of qualifying service from eight years to five years in respect of petitioner No.1 and change in nomenclature of the post from Technical Assistant (Excavation) to Excavation Assistant. It is further submitted that the petitioners are Class-III employees seeking promotion to Class-II posts, and 8 such promotion is governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003, which mandate promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. As per Schedule-II of the Recruitment Rules, 2020, there are two sanctioned posts of Archaeologist, of which 50% are to be filled by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. No vacancy was available prior to the year 2020 and, therefore, no right of promotion accrued earlier. Learned State Counsel submits that when one post of Archaeologist became available for promotion, the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings were duly conducted. Petitioner No.1 was duly considered for promotion; however, she could not be promoted as her name appeared at Serial No.3 in the gradation list. One Shri Prabhat Kumar Singh, who was placed at Serial No.1 in the gradation list, was promoted and is presently working as Archaeologist. Thus, there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the promotion process. It is further submitted that the remaining post of Archaeologist, which was earmarked for direct recruitment under the Recruitment Rules, 2020, has rightly been filled through advertisement dated 22.06.2023. The said advertisement has been issued strictly in accordance with the statutory rules. The petitioners have not challenged the vires of the Recruitment Rules, 2020, and hence the provisions thereof are binding upon them. With regard to petitioner No.2, learned State Counsel submits that the promotional post is that of Publication Officer, of which there is only one sanctioned post in the cadre, to be filled 9 by 100% promotion. Since the said post is not vacant, no promotion proceedings could be initiated. Moreover, the name of petitioner No.2 appears at Serial No.2 in the gradation list and, therefore, no cause of action has arisen in her favour. Lastly, it is submitted that although a proposal for amendment of the Recruitment Rules, 2020 was forwarded by the Directorate, no final decision has been taken by the competent authority till date. Mere submission of a proposal does not confer any vested right upon the petitioners. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 submits that the petitioners have assailed the impugned advertisement solely on the ground that their alleged promotional avenues have been adversely affected despite their experience and, therefore, the posts in question ought to have been filled by promotion from the feeder cadre. It is submitted that the said grievance squarely pertains to the policy and service matters of the State, and the State has already filed a detailed reply adequately addressing all averments raised in the writ petition. So far as respondent No.3 is concerned, the advertisement was issued strictly in accordance with the requisition received from the Department and in conformity with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Directorate of Archaeology, Archives, Museum, Official Language and Culture Class-I and Class-II (Service Recruitment) Rules, 2020. The respondent has completed the entire selection process and published the final 10 selection list on 17.08.2023, which has not been challenged by the petitioners, either on the ground of procedural irregularity or on merits. In the absence of any challenge to the selection process or the final selection list, no illegality or infirmity can be attributed to the actions of respondent No.3, and the present writ petition does not warrant any interference by this Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 8. From the perusal of the record and the nature of reliefs sought by the petitioners, it clearly emerges that the core grievance of the petitioners is not merely against the impugned advertisement, but essentially relates to absence of any effective promotional avenue for the feeder cadre posts held by them. In substance, the petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to create promotional avenues for the posts of Archaeological Officer, Archaeologist, Epigraphist, Numismatist, Archive Officer and Curator by way of promotion from the feeder cadre, particularly from the post of Technical Assistant/Excavation Assistant and similarly placed posts. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been working in the Directorate of Culture & Archaeology since the year 2008 and possess more than 15 years of experience. The record also 11 indicates that the posts in question remained vacant for a considerable length of time and, during such period, the petitioners and other similarly situated employees were entrusted with, and in fact discharged, the duties and responsibilities attached to those higher posts. Though such discharge of duties may not have been by way of formal authorization, the fact remains that the petitioners have gained substantial practical experience and familiarity with the work of the said posts. At the same time, this Court is conscious of the settled legal position that creation of posts, framing or amendment of recruitment rules, and providing or restructuring promotional avenues are matters falling within the exclusive domain of the employer-State. Courts ordinarily do not interfere with policy decisions relating to service structure, nor can they issue a mandamus directing the State to create posts or alter recruitment policy in a particular manner. It is a prerogative of the State to take such decisions keeping in view the exigencies of service, administrative requirements and financial implications. However, it is equally well settled that denial of any promotional avenue for a prolonged period may give rise to a legitimate grievance requiring consideration by the competent authority. 10. Promotion, though not a fundamental right, is a vital condition of service, and the State is expected to ensure that its employees are not subjected to stagnation without justifiable reasons. 12 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Tripura v. K.K. Roy, reported in (2004) 9 SCC 65 has held as under : “4. Indisputably, the post of Law Officer- cum-Draftsman is a single-cadre post. It is also undisputed that there does not exist any promotional avenue therefor. The respondent is holder of a Master's degree as also a degree in Law. He was appointed in the year 1982. If the contention of the appellant is to be accepted, the respondent would be left without being promoted throughout his career. In almost an identical situation, a Bench of this Court in Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K.G.S. Bhatt [(1989) 4 SCC 635 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 45 : (1989) 11 ATC 880] held: (SCC pp. 638-39, para 9) “It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organisation public or private does not ‘hire a hand’ but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organisation not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must, therefore, be given an opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system. The opportunity for advancement is a requirement for progress of any organisation. It is an incentive for personnel development as well. (See Principles of Personnel Management, Flipo, Edwin B., 4th Edn., p. 246.) Every management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward. ‘The organisation that fails to develop a satisfactory 13 procedure for promotion is bound to pay a severe penalty in terms of administrative costs, misallocation of personnel, low morale, and ineffectual performance, among both non-managerial employees and their supervisors.’ (See Personnel Management, Dr Udai Pareek, p. 277.) There cannot be any modern management much less any career planning, manpower development, management development etc. which is not related to a system of promotions.” 5. The matter came up for consideration again in O.Z. Hussain (Dr) v. Union of India [1990 Supp SCC 688 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 649 : (1991) 16 ATC 521] wherein this Court in no uncertain terms laid down the law stating: (SCC pp. 691-92, para 7) “Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the non-medical ‘A’ Group scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such advantage. In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and, therefore, it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend to the representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of officers.” 14 6. It is not a case where there existed an avenue for promotion. It is also not a case where the State intended to make amendments in the promotional policy. The appellant being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution should have created promotional avenues for the respondent having regard to its constitutional obligations adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Despite its constitutional obligations, the State cannot take a stand that as the respondent herein accepted the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment knowing fully well that there was no avenue for promotion, he cannot resile therefrom. It is not a case where the principles of estoppel or waiver should be applied having regard to the constitutional functions of the State. It is not disputed that the other States in India/Union of India having regard to the recommendations made in this behalf by the Pay Commission introduced the Scheme of Assured Career Promotion in terms whereof the incumbent of a post if not promoted within a period of 12 years is granted one higher scale of pay and another upon completion of 24 years if in the meanwhile he had not been promoted despite existence of promotional avenues. When questioned, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, even could not point out that the State of Tripura has introduced such a scheme. We wonder as to why such a scheme was not introduced by the appellant like the other States in India, and what impeded it from doing so. Promotion being a condition of service and having regard to the requirements thereof as has been 15 pointed out by this Court in the decisions referred to hereinbefore, it was expected that the appellant should have followed the said principle. 7. We are, thus, of the opinion that the respondent herein is at least entitled to grant of two higher grades, one upon expiry of the period of 12 years from the date of his joining of the service and the other upon expiry of 24 years thereof. xxx xxx xxx 9. For the reasons aforementioned, we direct that the respondent herein be paid two promotions in the next higher scale of pay upon his completion of 12 years and 24 years in service. This appeal is disposed of with the aforementioned directions. No costs.” 11. In the present case, the material on record shows that proposals were forwarded by the Directorate of Culture & Archaeology recommending creation of promotional avenues for the petitioners and similarly placed employees, but the same have not yet been considered or decided by the competent authority. Therefore, without entering into the validity of the impugned advertisement or the vires of the Recruitment Rules, 2020, and without trenching upon the policy domain of the State, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grievance raised by the petitioners deserves consideration at the appropriate administrative level. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners 16 for creation of promotional avenues for the posts of Archaeological Officer, Archaeologist, Epigraphist, Numismatist, Archive Officer and Curator, or such other equivalent posts, by promotion from the appropriate feeder cadre, including the posts held by the petitioners. While considering the said claim, the respondent authorities shall take into account the length of service, experience and nature of duties discharged by the petitioners and similarly situated employees, as well as the proposals already submitted by the Directorate of Culture & Archaeology. The competent authority shall take an appropriate decision in accordance with law and applicable rules, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a reasonable period. 13. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the policy decision to be taken by the State, as creation of posts and promotional avenues is the exclusive prerogative of the employer-State and lies within its policy domain. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE