1 CGHC010292732026 2026:CGHC:36132-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 752 of 2026 Kamlesh Kumar Ruparelia S/o Lt. Shri Ramji Bhai Aged About 61 Years Vartman Padh Uchh Varg Shikshak, Shaskiya Anudan Prapat Vidhyalaya Shri Gujrati Uchhtar Madhyamik Shala, Devendra Nagar, Sector 4, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sachiv, School Shiksha Vibhag, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur (Atal Nagar), District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Sanchalak, Lok Shikshan Sanchalnalaya Indravati Bhavan, Nava Raipur (Atal Nagar), District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Jila Shiksha Adhikari District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Shri Gujrati Shikshan Sangh Through Adhyaksh, Devendra Nagar, Sector 4, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Vandana Sanghvi Vartman Padh Vyakhyata Shri Gujrati Uchtar Madhyamik Shala, Devendra Nagar, Sector 4, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Kamlesh Kumar Ruparelia in person For Respondents No.1 to 3/State : Mr.Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.08.17 10:32:14 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.08.2026 1. Heard appellant Kamlesh Kumar Ruparelia in person. Also heard Mr.Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 3/State. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 22.07.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.5501/2026 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-in-person submits that the learned Single Judge has committed a serious error of law in dismissing the writ petition and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the appellant had been continuously and diligently approaching the competent authorities by submitting repeated complaints against the promotion of respondent No.5. The appellant had raised his grievance before the competent authorities from time to time, but the same was not properly considered. Therefore, the writ petition could not have been dismissed merely on the ground of delay and laches, particularly when the appellant had been pursuing his grievance continuously before the departmental authorities. 4. The appellant-in-person further submits that the present promotion of respondent No.5 is founded upon an earlier illegal appointment 3 and promotion, which has directly affected the appellant's service rights, seniority and his eligibility for consideration for promotion in the promotion process undertaken in the year 2024. It is therefore contended that the appellant has a subsisting and direct legal grievance and was fully entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the settled principle that an action in public employment which is contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India cannot be permitted to perpetuate an illegality. According to the appellant, the promotion granted to respondent No.5 is illegal from its inception and its continued operation is causing recurring prejudice to the appellant's service rights. In such circumstances, the appellant's claim could not have been rejected merely on the ground of delay. 5. The appellant-in-person further submits that respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of Upper Division Teacher (Zoology) vide order dated 19.01.2018, although, according to the appellant, the post of Upper Division Teacher (Zoology) was not in existence in the relevant cadre. It is submitted that pursuant to the School Education Department's letter dated 28.08.1991, certain posts of lecturers which had earlier been abolished under the Education Policy, 1979, were revived; however, there was no sanctioned post of Upper Division Teacher (Zoology). Therefore, the promotion of respondent No.5 against such post was wholly without authority of law. It is further submitted that the initial appointment of 4 respondent No.5 was on the post of Assistant/Laboratory Assistant, and in view of the Government letter dated 13.08.1986, respondent No.5 was not eligible for promotion to the post of Upper Division Teacher. According to the appellant, the promotion granted to respondent No.5 despite the absence of the requisite eligibility is consequently illegal and liable to be quashed. 6. The appellant-in-person also submits that, as per the sanctioned post position of Gujarati Higher Secondary School, District Raipur, the post relating to Zoology is a single/isolated post, which, under the applicable rules, could be filled only through direct recruitment. Therefore, according to the appellant, filling up such post by way of promotion was contrary to the governing recruitment rules and beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent authorities. It is also submitted that the promotion granted to respondent No.5 is contrary to the provisions of the Rules of 1979 and Rules of 1988. The appellant contends that the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Rules was not followed before granting promotion and, consequently, the promotion order dated 19.01.2018 is illegal and liable to be set aside. 7. The appellant-in-person contended that under Rule 3(4) of the Rules of 1988, the Departmental Promotion Committee was required to be constituted and the promotion exercise was required to be undertaken every year. However, according to the appellant, the competent authority failed to constitute the 5 promotion committee for several years and thereafter undertook a consolidated promotion exercise in the year 2018. Such a course, according to the appellant, was contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Rules and rendered the entire promotion exercise arbitrary. It is further submitted that the manner in which the consolidated exercise was undertaken also gives rise to a serious apprehension of administrative favouritism and discrimination. It is further submitted that the proposal and recommendation for promotion of respondent No.5 were not prepared in the mandatory Forms 'A' and 'B' prescribed by the Directorate of Public Instruction vide its letter dated 28.07.1998. It is contended that the recommendation was also not made by the competent authority and was instead forwarded/recommended by persons who were not authorised to do so. Therefore, the promotion granted on the basis of such defective recommendation cannot be sustained in law. 8. It is submitted that the committee was not constituted in accordance with Rule 3(2) of the Rules of 1988 and persons who were not legally eligible to be members of the committee were included in the process. It is further alleged that some of the persons who participated in the process had themselves forwarded the recommendation in favour of respondent No.5. According to the appellant, such participation raises a serious issue of lack of impartiality and violates the principles of fairness and natural justice. The appellant further submits that he had 6 repeatedly brought these irregularities to the notice of the competent authorities through complaints dated 29.01.2018, 22.01.2020, 20.07.2023, 20.11.2024, 06.01.2025, 23.01.2025, 21.10.2024 and 21.05.2026. Despite the repeated representations, the authorities failed to conduct any meaningful inquiry into the legality of respondent No.5's appointment and promotion. The appellant contends that such continued inaction on the part of the authorities deprived him of an effective departmental remedy and resulted in violation of his rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. It is further submitted that the appellant has never remained inactive or acquiesced in the alleged illegality. From the date of the promotion order dated 19.01.2018, he has continuously pursued the matter before the competent authorities and has repeatedly sought protection of his legitimate service rights. Therefore, the delay, if any, cannot be attributed to negligence or indolence on the part of the appellant. 9. The appellant-in-person further submitted that the subsequent promotion order dated 17.09.2024 has directly prejudiced his legitimate right to be considered for promotion, as well as his seniority and other consequential service benefits. The continuing adverse effect of respondent No.5's allegedly illegal promotion has given the appellant a subsisting cause to approach this Hon'ble Court. In the circumstances, the writ petition ought to have been considered on its merits rather than being dismissed on the technical ground of delay. It is lastly submitted that failure on the 7 part of respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider and decide the repeated complaints submitted by the appellant amounts to arbitrary exercise of administrative power and violates the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The appellant had approached the competent authorities in good faith and had exhausted the available departmental remedy, but no effective decision was taken. Consequently, the appellant was left with no efficacious remedy except to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. On the aforesaid grounds, the appellant-in-person submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from errors of law and fact and deserves to be set aside. The appellant prays that the writ appeal be allowed, the impugned order be quashed, and the competent authorities be directed to examine the legality of appointment and promotion of respondent No.5 in accordance with the applicable rules and, upon finding the same illegal, to take consequential action in accordance with law. 10.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 3/State opposes the submissions made by the appellant-in-person and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 11.Having heard the appellant-in-person and learned Government 8 Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 3/State and upon perusal of the record, we are of the considered opinion that the present writ appeal is devoid of merit and does not warrant interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 12.The learned Single Judge has rightly noticed that the impugned order of promotion in favour of respondent No.5 was passed on 19.01.2018, whereas the writ petition was instituted after an inordinate lapse of time. Though the appellant has referred to certain representations/complaints allegedly submitted before the departmental authorities from time to time, mere submission of representations does not, by itself, furnish a satisfactory explanation for the extraordinary delay in invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any sufficient or legally acceptable explanation which would justify entertaining the stale challenge to the promotion order after such a prolonged period. 13.It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and equitable in nature. A person seeking such extraordinary relief is required to approach the Court within a reasonable period. An unexplained and unreasonable delay disentitles a litigant from invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the writ Court, particularly where the impugned order has operated for several years and the rights and status of the affected employee have remained settled during the 9 intervening period. 14.The contention of the appellant that the alleged illegality in the promotion of respondent No.5 constitutes a continuing cause of action also cannot, in the facts of the present case, be accepted so as to completely disregard the doctrine of delay and laches. The promotion order was passed as far back as 19.01.2018, and the appellant has not demonstrated any fresh cause of action arising independently at a later point of time which could revive the challenge to the original promotion order. Mere continuation of the consequences flowing from an old order does not, in every case, constitute a continuing wrong so as to defeat the principle of laches. 15.We also find substance in the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant has not sought any specific consequential relief in his own favour. The appellant has primarily challenged the promotion of respondent No.5, but has not clearly established the nature of his enforceable service right which has been directly infringed by the impugned promotion order. The mere assertion that the promotion of respondent No.5 has affected the appellant's prospects of promotion or seniority, without establishing his corresponding legal entitlement to a particular promotional post or position, is not sufficient to maintain a stale challenge to the promotion of another employee. 16.It is a settled principle that the writ jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be 10 invoked by a person merely to seek cancellation of an order affecting a third party unless the appellant establishes infringement of his own legal or enforceable right. In the present case, the appellant has failed to demonstrate such infringement in a manner sufficient to warrant exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 17.The repeated representations allegedly submitted by the appellant before the authorities also do not alter the position. An administrative representation cannot indefinitely extend the period for challenging the original order, nor can repeated representations revive a cause of action which had otherwise become stale. The appellant cannot overcome the bar of delay and laches merely by relying upon correspondence or representations made after the promotion order. 18.We are also conscious of the allegations made by the appellant regarding the eligibility of respondent No.5, the constitution of the Departmental Promotion Committee and the alleged violation of the applicable recruitment and promotion rules. However, having regard to the enormous delay in challenging the promotion order and the absence of a demonstrated enforceable right of the appellant, we are not inclined to undertake an adjudication of these stale issues in the present proceedings. 19.In view of the aforesaid, we find that the learned Single Judge has committed no error of law or jurisdiction in dismissing the writ 11 petition on the grounds of delay and laches as well as want of maintainability. No case for interference in intra-court appellate jurisdiction is made out. 20.Consequently, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu