1 2026:CGHC:25934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5627 of 2021 Ram Dular Sahu S/o Late Shri Menghu Ram Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Police Line, Government Quarter, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Inspector General of Police Bilaspur, Range, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Superintendent of Police, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mrs. Renu Kochar, Advocate For State : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24/06/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent authorities to consider petitioner for post of Head Constable and to keep one seat of Head Constable vacant for petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That this Hon'ble court may be further pleased to pass any other consequential and other orders/ Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 writs which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working on the post of Constable and claimed promotion to the post of Head Constable. The claim of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Constable to Head Constable was rejected vide order dated 13.09.2021 on the ground that he could not secure the qualifying marks in accordance with Standard Operating Procedure, 2021 (for short, SOP). No. 25/21 dated 06.08.2021. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on 10.02.1993. She would further submit that for promotion from the post of Constable to Head Constable, the respondent authorities issued SOP on 07.08.2021, prescribing the criteria of seniority-cum-merit. She would also submit that as per Schedule-B of the SOP, service records were to be evaluated out of 50 marks and a candidate was required to secure at least 40% marks to qualify for the the promotion. She would contend that a district-wise list of eligible Constables was published on 08.09.2021 and objections were invited. She would further contend that the petitioner submitted his objection on 09.09.2021 and sought consideration of two training courses completed by him, but vide order dated 13.09.2021, while deciding the objections, the respondent authorities awarded the petitioner only 3 marks for one training course and failed to grant marks for the Computer Training Course. She would argue that had three marks been awarded, he would have attained qualifying marks and become eligible for promotion; thus, she would pray to allow this writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that candidates were considered strictly in accordance with the criteria prescribed under the SOP and objections submitted by the candidates 3 were duly considered by the competent authority. He would further also submit that as per Schedule-B of the SOP, a candidate is entitled to 3 marks for a training course of less than 30 days and 5 marks for a training course exceeding 30 days, but in the present case, the petitioner was duly awarded 3 marks for the training certificate. Since the petitioner did not furnish the requisite supporting documents for the other training course claimed by him, no further marks were awarded; thus, the petitioner was not found eligible for promotion; thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 6. It appears that the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 13.09.2021 (Annexure P/4), whereby his claim for promotion was rejected and has filed the present petition seeking a direction to consider his claim for promotion and to keep one seat of Head Constable vacant. 7. An interim order was passed on 06.10.2021 in favour of the petitioner, wherein it was observed that the promotions made from the post of Constable to the post of Head Constable would be subject to the outcome of this petition. 8. Since the petitioner has failed to challenge the order whereby his claim for promotion from the post of Constable to the post of Head Constable was rejected, the present petition is not maintainable. 9. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim