1 CGHC010250902016 2026:CGHC:39488 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 607 of 2016 1 - Alakh Ram Dhruw S/o Chhabiram Dhruw, Aged About 53 Years R/o Sector- Il, H- 185, Kashiram Nagar, Ring Road No.1, P.S. Tatibandh, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Directorate Of Public Instruction, Through Director, 1st Floor, C- Wing, Indrawati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sunil Kumar Bhumarkar, Through Director, 1st Floor, C- Wing, Indrawati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shailesh Sharma, Through Director, 1st Floor, C-Wing, Indrawati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Baghel, Advocate For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09.09.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s):- “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case including the departmental promotion committee proceedings with regard to order No./Stha.4/C/Padonnati/2016/528, dated 01.02.2016 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent no. 2 and; 10.2) Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the instant -2- petition and set-aside the order No. /Stha. 4/C/Padonnati/2016/528, dated 01.02.2016 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent no. 2 and further direct for promotion of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.02.2016 by issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions. 10.3) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Tribe community while serving in the position of Assistant Grade-I was denied promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent in the office of Directorate of Public Instructions, on the ground that there was no vacancy available for the Scheduled Tribe category. 3. Mr. Baghel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would invite attention of this Court to Circular dated 08.03.2006, particularly Clause 5 thereof, which states that an unreserved vacancy in the roster does not mean that post is reserved only for candidates belonging to the unreserved category; rather, it is simply an unreserved post, and if, against such unreserved post, a candidate belonging to a reserved category fulfills criteria of seniority-cum-merit, such candidate has to be considered against said vacancy. Mr. Baghel would contend that in the DPC meeting convened on 12.01.2016, there were two vacancies to be filled by promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent from the post of Assistant Grade-1. He would contend that one post was earmarked for the unreserved category, whereas an other post was earmarked for the Scheduled Caste category. He would further contend that the 3 claim of the petitioner ought to have been considered against the post kept for the unreserved category. It is also argued that a similar stand was taken by one Rajkumar Chandnani when the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-1 and objection raised by said candidate was rejected in WPS No.2430 of 2009. He would submit that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent with effect from 01.02.2016. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Baghel. He would submit that there was no vacancy in the Scheduled Tribe category; therefore, the name of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent. He would further submit that the posts were filled strictly in accordance with the reservation roster. He would submit that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was senior to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the seniority list of Assistant Grade-1. The names of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent by applying the reservation roster, as there were only two posts, one of which was reserved for the Scheduled Caste category and an other for the unreserved category. Though the petitioner was senior but his name was not -4- considered only on the ground that he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category and there was no vacancy in said category. 7. The Circular dated 08.03.2006 clarifies the aforesaid position and the relevant portion thereof is reproduced hereinbelow: "उपरोक्त के अतितरिरोक्त यह भी स्पष्ट तिकेय जात ह तिके रोस्टरो में अनारोक्षित वर्ग के ति न्दु सामेंन्य वर्ग के लि%ए आरोक्षित नाह( ह वरोना अनारोक्षित) ह, अर्थात अनारोक्षित ति न्दु परो यदि, वरिरोष्ठत के आधारो परो आरोक्षित श्रे णी के व्यक्तिक्त के ना3 रो सातिनायरिरोट4 एव3 यग्यत के आधारो परो आत ह त उसा अनारोक्षित ति न्दु के तिवरुध्, तिवचारो तिकेय जाय र्ग जा , के उसा वर्ग के आरोक्षित ति न्दु सा सामेंयजिजात नाह( ह:र्ग ।" 8. Further, a similar issue was raised in WPS No. 2430 of 2009. The relevant paragraphs Nos. 5, 7 and 9, are reproduced hereinbelow: “5.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once the post is made available for the candidates belonging to unreserved category, the same cannot be filled up by the candidates belonging to reserved category because for the reserved category candidates, the posts have been made available separately. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others {(2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 1). 7.It is settled law that as and when appointment to the post by way of direct recruitment or by promotion is considered, such candidate belonging to reserved category, if comes within the zone of consideration in the feeder cadre on the strength of his merit, has to be adjusted on a post which is unreserved, meaning thereby, which is open for all categories. 9. The State of Chhattisgarh by its circular dated 8.3.2006 has clarified that in view of Rule 6 (9) of the Rules, 2003, in cases of promotion based on seniority cum fitness, the names of the candidates shall be considered on the basis of their seniority in the feeder cadre. Thus, the circular issued by the DOPT on 11.7.2002 read with circular issued by the General Administration Department of Chhattisgarh Government on 8.3.2006, it would be manifest that when a candidate belonging to reserved category finds place in the merit list on the strength of his seniority in cases where promotion to the next higher post is on the basis of seniority cum fitness, he would be considered for a post which is meant for open category and merely because of the fact that when he entered in the feeder cadre, he 5 was promoted as reserved category candidate, he will not lose his seniority in the feeder cadre when such seniority is sufficient enough for consideration of his name for promotion to the next higher post in the zone of consideration for a post which is open for all categories i.e. unreserved category post.” 9. Bare reading of Clause 5 of the Circular dated 08.03.2006 and observations made in WPS No. 2430 of 2009, it is amply manifested that the petitioner, though he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category, being senior, his name should have been considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to hold a review DPC of DPC dated 12.01.2016 to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent. 10.The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha