1 2026:CGHC:27131-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4464 of 2024 Pithiyar Sai Bhagat S/o Late Shri C. R. Bhagat Aged About 58 Years Working As Senior Scientific Officer, Posted At Forensic Science (Laboratory), Raigarh, District- Raigarh, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G. 2. Dr. T. L. Chandra Working As Joint Director At Office Of Director State Forensic Science (Laboratory), Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 3. Smt. Anupama Meshram Working As Joint Director At Office Of Regional Forensic Science (Laboratory), Jagdalpur, District- Baster, C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.03 13:25:12 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Somkant Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, the petitioner respectfully prays that the existing provisions relating to promotional post of Joint Director, Subject Wise, Schedule-I & II Serial No. 2 are deserve to declared ultra vires and after declared ultra vires promotion order of private respondents dated 13.07.2023, deserved to set aside. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, amended the Chhattisgarh Forensic Science Laboratory (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2006 (for short, ‘Rules of 2006’) by notification dated 12.10.2021, which came into force from the date of its publication. The impugned amendment has substantially altered the promotional structure governing the post of Joint Director and has 3 seriously prejudiced the promotional rights of the petitioner. He further submits that prior to the formation of the State of Chhattisgarh, the service conditions of the employees of the Forensic Science Laboratory were governed by the Madhya Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1993. After the bifurcation of the State, the Government of Chhattisgarh framed the Rules of 2006, which have governed the service conditions of the employees since their enforcement. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Scientific Officer in the year 1998 on probation and joined his duties on 24.08.1998. Upon successful completion of the prescribed probation period, his services were duly confirmed. Thereafter, on account of his satisfactory service record and in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Scientific Officer and is presently serving on the said post. He also contended that under the Rules of 2006, the next promotional post from the cadre of Senior Scientific Officer is that of Joint Director, which is a 100% promotional post requiring only five years' qualifying service in the feeder cadre. The petitioner has completed more than nine years of service as Senior Scientific Officer and fulfills every prescribed eligibility condition for promotion. Throughout his service career of more than twenty-six years, the petitioner has maintained an unblemished record, without any complaint, punishment or adverse remark, and possesses the requisite educational qualification of M.Sc. (Chemistry). 4 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are six sanctioned posts of Joint Director in the department and one additional post was subsequently created. The petitioner has consistently figured in the common gradation list of Senior Scientific Officers and, in the gradation list published as on 01.04.2021, his name appears above the private respondents. Prior to the amendment dated 12.10.2021, there was no dispute whatsoever regarding the common seniority, feeder cadre, promotional post or eligibility criteria, and promotions were always governed by the common gradation list. He further submitted that the entire controversy has arisen only because of the amendment dated 12.10.2021, whereby the respondent-State divided the promotional post of Joint Director into discipline-wise vacancies, namely Physics, Chemistry and Biology, and correspondingly segregated the feeder cadre on subject-wise basis. By introducing this subject-wise classification, the respondents abandoned the long-standing system of common seniority and proceeded to grant promotions discipline-wise, resulting in officers junior to the petitioner being promoted while the petitioner was denied consideration despite his undisputed seniority and eligibility. He also submits that, on account of the impugned amendment, officers junior to the petitioner have been promoted as Joint Directors and are presently exercising administrative control and supervision over the petitioner. Such a situation has arisen solely because of the impugned amendment and has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner by disturbing the settled service structure which had been consistently followed under the Rules of 2006. 5 6. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1993 classified certain posts subject-wise, the State of Chhattisgarh, while framing the Rules of 2006, consciously departed from that system by providing a common cadre and common promotional avenue to the post of Joint Director. For more than fifteen years, promotions were governed by common seniority without any subject-wise classification. The impugned amendment has reversed the settled position and has deprived the petitioner of his accrued promotional prospects. He also stated that the petitioner has rendered more than twenty-six years of dedicated service and is due to retire in March, 2028. Because of the impugned amendment, he has been deprived of his only promotional opportunity to the post of Joint Director during the remaining period of his service, whereas officers admittedly junior to him have already secured promotion and would become eligible for further promotional benefits. The petitioner, despite possessing longer experience, higher seniority and an unblemished service record, has been denied promotion solely because of the subject-wise classification introduced by the amended Rules. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject-wise zone of consideration created by the impugned amendment is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, as it confers an undue advantage upon officers belonging to particular disciplines while depriving senior officers of consideration on the basis of common seniority. The classification introduced by the amended Rules has no 6 rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved and has resulted in hostile discrimination against the petitioner. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the petitioner, being senior in the common gradation list and fully eligible for promotion under the Rules of 2006, has been illegally denied promotion to the post of Joint Director, while his juniors have been promoted solely because of the impugned amendment. The action of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the impugned amendment, to the extent it deprives the petitioner of his legitimate promotional rights, deserves to be quashed and the petitioner deserves to be considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director on the basis of the common seniority list. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Scientific Officer in the year 1998 in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1993. During the course of service, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Scientific Officer. After the reorganization of the State, the Rules of 2006 came into force. Under the said Rules, while the posts of Scientific Officer and Senior Scientific Officer were classified subject- wise, the post of Joint Director, though limited in number, was not specifically categorized subject-wise. He further submitted that the contention of the petitioner challenging the amendment dated 12.10.2021 is misconceived. Under the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1993, the post 7 of Joint Director itself was classified subject-wise, wherein out of the sanctioned posts, separate posts were earmarked for Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Training. Thus, subject-wise classification at the level of Joint Director was not a new concept but was already in existence under the earlier statutory framework. 9. It is further contended by the learned State counsel that the Bureau of Police Research and Development, Government of India, after the Directors' Conference held in November, 2000, issued revised work norms for Forensic Science Laboratories vide communication dated 12.11.2002. As per the revised work norms, it was recommended that each of the three principal groups, namely Chemical Science, Biological Science and Physical Science, should function under a separate Deputy Director, who would supervise the work of the respective divisions and ensure efficient technical administration. He also contended that although there is no sanctioned post of Deputy Director in the State of Chhattisgarh, the equivalent promotional post under the applicable service rules is that of Joint Director. Keeping in view the recommendations of the Bureau of Police Research and Development and the administrative requirement of efficient functioning of the State Forensic Science Laboratory as well as Regional Forensic Science Laboratories, the State Government undertook rationalization of the technical posts by order dated 28.10.2013. Thereafter, by order dated 11.06.2015, the gazetted technical posts were also organized subject-wise with the object of ensuring effective supervision, better administration and smooth functioning of the specialized forensic 8 divisions. He would submit that despite such administrative rationalization, the Rules of 2006 continued to classify the feeder posts subject-wise while the promotional post of Joint Director remained undivided. Consequently, in order to bring the statutory rules in conformity with the existing administrative structure and to streamline the promotional hierarchy, the State Government introduced the amendment dated 12.10.2021, whereby the posts of Joint Director were allocated subject-wise. The amendment is a policy decision taken in the interest of efficient administration and specialized functioning of the forensic science laboratories and does not suffer from any arbitrariness or illegality. 10. Learned State counsel further submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by virtue of the impugned amendment. On the contrary, during the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Joint Director (Chemistry) (Gazetted First Class) vide order dated 04.11.2025. In view of the said promotion, the grievance raised by the petitioner no longer survives. It is, therefore, submitted that the amendment dated 12.10.2021 has been validly introduced in furtherance of administrative exigencies and for ensuring efficient subject-wise supervision of the forensic science laboratories. The challenge raised by the petitioner is devoid of any legal or factual merit and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 adopts the submissions advanced on behalf of State/respondent No.1 and further 9 submits that the impugned amendment has been brought in by the competent rule-making authority in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner having already been promoted to the post of Joint Director during the pendency of the present writ petition, no surviving grievance remains for consideration. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. The principal challenge in the present writ petition is to the constitutional validity of the amendment dated 12.10.2021 whereby the promotional post of Joint Director under the Rules of 2006 has been classified subject-wise. The petitioner seeks quashment of the amendment on the ground that the subject-wise classification has adversely affected his promotional prospects and resulted in officers junior to him being promoted ahead of him. 14. It is well settled that framing of service rules, prescribing qualifications, determining promotional avenues and restructuring cadres are matters falling within the exclusive domain of the rule- making authority. The scope of judicial review in such matters is limited. Unless the policy decision or statutory rule is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or violative of any constitutional or statutory provision, the Court would not interfere with the wisdom of the policy adopted by the competent authority. 10 15. From the material placed on record, it is evident that the State has assigned cogent reasons for introducing the amendment dated 12.10.2021. The State has demonstrated that even under the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1993, the post of Joint Director was classified subject-wise. It has also been explained that, pursuant to the revised work norms issued by the Bureau of Police Research and Development and the subsequent rationalization of the technical posts, specialized supervision of different scientific disciplines became an administrative necessity. The amendment was, therefore, introduced to align the statutory Recruitment Rules with the existing administrative framework. The classification based upon specialized disciplines has a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved, namely efficient administration and effective supervision of the scientific divisions. We do not find the impugned amendment to be manifestly arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. 16. It is also not in dispute that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Joint Director (Chemistry) vide order dated 04.11.2025. Consequently, the grievance regarding denial of promotion no longer survives. The petitioner has also failed to demonstrate as to how the impugned amendment suffers from any constitutional infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11 17. It is trite that an employee has no vested right to promotion under an existing set of service rules. The right which accrues is only a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the rules prevailing on the date of consideration. The employer is competent to amend the service rules in public interest and to restructure the promotional hierarchy in order to meet administrative exigencies. In the absence of any constitutional or statutory violation, such policy decisions are not amenable to judicial interference. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for declaring the amendment dated 12.10.2021 as ultra vires or unconstitutional. At the same time, in view of the subsequent promotion granted to the petitioner during the pendency of the present writ petition, the grievance relating to denial of promotion has ceased to survive. 19. Accordingly, no further adjudication is called for in the present writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan