1 2026:CGHC:2552 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2458 of 2023 Suresh Prasad Tripathi S/o Jamuna Prasad Tripathi Aged About 59 Years Presently Working As Compounder At Achanakmar Tiger Reserve Forest, Lormi, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Forest And Climate Change, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Conservator of Forest Aranya Bhawan, Sector-19, North Block Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Additional Chief Conservator of Forest Aranya Bhawan, Sector- 19, North Block, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Conservator of Forest Bilaspur Circle, Sindhi Colony Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Pin-495001. 5 - The Deputy Director Achanakmar Tiger Reserve Forest Lormi, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. P.R. Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 15.01.2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to change the nomenclature of his post from Compounder to Pharmacist Grade–II. However, the petitioner has failed to place on record or demonstrate the YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.01.15 18:55:25 +0530 2 prescribed qualifications required for appointment to the post of Compounder as well as Pharmacist Grade–II. In the absence of any material showing parity or equivalence of qualifications for the two posts, the petitioner has been unable to substantiate his claim for renaming or redesignation of the post. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present writ petition with the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to change the name of Compounder into the name of Pharmacist Grade-II. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working under respondent No.5 on the post of Compounder and has been discharging his duties with sincerity and diligence. The Under Secretary, Department of Forestry, by letter dated 04.12.2020, addressed to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, Raipur, with reference to earlier letter dated 08.06.2020, informed that the post of Compounder has been re-designated as Pharmacist Grade-II and called upon the authorities to take necessary steps, including preparation of academic/comparative charts. 3. Pursuant thereto, the Upper Chief Conservator of Forest, by letter dated 30.12.2020, informed that the name of the petitioner, Suresh Prasad Tripathi, posted as Compounder at Achanakmar Tiger Reserve Forest Medical Dispensary, whose post has been 3 changed to Pharmacist Grade-II, has been forwarded to the Head Office, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Forestry, for approval, and sought information regarding steps taken at the concerned level. Thereafter, by letter dated 05.01.2021, the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur, referred to the ongoing official correspondence and called for a comparative chart for the purpose of effecting the change of designation from Compounder to Pharmacist Grade-II. 4. Subsequently, on 12.10.2021, the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur, reiterated the earlier communications and recorded that the response from the office of the Deputy Director, Achanakmar Tiger Reserve Forest, Lormi, was still awaited. Further, a memorandum dated 29.05.2021 was issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Forestry and Climate Change, addressed to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, Raipur, with reference to letters dated 08.06.2020 and 04.12.2020, regarding change of designation of the petitioner from Compounder to Pharmacist Grade-II, seeking necessary directions from respondent No.2. However, no decision has been taken till date. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner has also submitted several representations dated 18.01.2016, 20.01.2016, 27.02.2020 and 19.10.2022 before the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur, requesting consideration of his case. Despite 4 repeated representations, no action has been taken and the matter remains pending without any response from the competent authority. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner is still pending consideration before the respondent authorities. Despite repeated representations and continuous follow-up, the concerned authorities have merely exchanged inter-departmental correspondence, which has remained inconclusive and has not yielded any tangible or effective result till date. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities have acted in violation of their own circulars/policy decisions and have also infringed the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the petitioner, who is directly affected, has not been afforded a meaningful opportunity of hearing. It is contended that there has been inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the respondent authorities in deciding the petitioner’s legitimate claim, which ought to have been settled in his favour long back. However, due to lack of diligence, sincerity and administrative apathy on the part of the concerned department, the matter has remained pending till date, causing grave prejudice to the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that the actions and inaction of the respondent authorities are illegal, mala fide, arbitrary and unreasonable, and are squarely opposed to settled principles of service jurisprudence as well as the constitutional mandate enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner, who is holding the substantive post of Compounder, had submitted a representation before the Chief Conservator of Forests, Achanakmar Tiger Reserve, Koni, District Bilaspur (C.G.), seeking change of the nomenclature of his post from Compounder to Pharmacist Grade–II, on the ground that Degree/Diploma-holder Compounders have been re-designated as Pharmacist Grade–II in certain other departments. It was further submitted that the said representation has already been taken into consideration by the respondent authorities and, in furtherance thereof, necessary inter-departmental communications have been initiated for collection and verification of the relevant information. Learned State counsel contended that the petitioner’s claim is still under active consideration before the competent authority and, after due examination of the relevant service records, statutory rules, and applicable policy guidelines, an appropriate decision shall be taken strictly in accordance with law. 8. Learned State counsel further submitted that the post of Compounder and the post of Pharmacist Grade–II are distinct and non-equivalent posts. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Compounder, and the qualifications prescribed for the post of Compounder are materially different from those required for appointment to the post of Pharmacist Grade–II. In view of the 6 difference in qualifications, duties, and service conditions, the relief sought by the petitioner for change of nomenclature cannot be granted. As such, the instant writ petition, being premature in nature, is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings as well as the documents placed on record. 10. From a perusal of the record, it clearly emerges that the petitioner was appointed to the substantive post of Compounder in the office of the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur, and continues to hold the said post. Subsequent to his appointment, the petitioner submitted representations seeking conversion or redesignation of the nomenclature of his post from Compounder to Pharmacist Grade–II. However, on scrutiny of the record, this Court finds that the post of Compounder and the post of Pharmacist Grade–II are governed by separate recruitment rules, carry different qualifications, duties and responsibilities, and are treated as distinct cadres under the service jurisprudence applicable to the department. 11. Merely because certain communications were exchanged at the departmental level or because redesignation has been effected in some other departments, no vested or enforceable right accrues in favour of the petitioner to seek automatic change of the nomenclature of his post. 7 12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the petitioner does not insist upon immediate redesignation but merely seeks a sympathetic consideration of his claim in light of the pending representations and inter-departmental correspondence. This Court is unable to accept the said submission. The material placed on record shows that the petitioner’s representations have already been taken into consideration by the respondent authorities and that the matter is under examination at the appropriate administrative level. The Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue a mandamus directing change of designation when such change involves examination of statutory rules, qualifications, equivalence of posts and policy decisions, all of which lie within the exclusive domain of the employer. 13. This Court is further of the considered view that the relief claimed by the petitioner is misconceived. Redesignation or renaming of a post cannot be claimed as a matter of right unless the petitioner establishes parity in qualifications, duties and service conditions between the two posts, which has admittedly not been done in the present case. If the petitioner is otherwise eligible for promotion or appointment to a higher post in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules, it shall always be open for the respondent authorities to consider such claim strictly in accordance with law. However, merely seeking a change in the nomenclature of the 8 post, without fulfilment of the essential qualifications or existence of a statutory provision enabling such conversion, cannot be permitted. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. The petition is devoid of any enforceable legal right and does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that in the event any promotional avenue is available to the petitioner under the applicable service rules, the respondent authorities may consider his case and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh