1 CGHC010354662026 2026:CGHC:39797 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6678 of 2026 Smt. Yamuna Singh Guruvekar W/o Vikas Kumar Guruvekar Aged About 33 Years R/o Working As Assistance Sub Inspector (M), Posted As Office Of The Police Commissioner, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Inspector General Of Police, Range, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 4. Police Commissioner, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Badgaiya, G.A. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 11.09.2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Constable (M) on compassionate grounds vide order dated 20.06.2013 and has rendered her services diligently. He submits that the petitioner fulfilled the requisite qualifications for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (M) in terms of JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.09.11 17:14:39 +0530 2 the applicable SOP and circulars dated 23.06.1995 and 23.08.2023, having completed more than five years of service and possessing the requisite educational qualification. He further submits that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (M) vide order dated 24.06.2025; however, without affording any opportunity of hearing or issuing any notice to the petitioner, the said promotion was cancelled vide impugned order dated 03.09.2026. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. 2. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that though the promotion order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 24.06.2025, the same was not in accordance with the applicable rules and, therefore, it has rightly been cancelled. He submits that no interference is warranted. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 4. From the pleadings and material available on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (M) vide order dated 24.06.2025. The subsequent cancellation of the said promotion, vide impugned order dated 03.09.2026, admittedly entails adverse civil consequences to the petitioner. Before passing such an adverse order, the petitioner ought to have been afforded an opportunity of hearing and put to notice regarding the alleged illegality in her promotion. 3 5. The respondents have not disputed that no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before cancellation of her promotion. Even if the respondents were of the opinion that the promotion order dated 24.06.2025 was contrary to the rules, the same could not have been cancelled behind the back of the petitioner without following the principles of natural justice. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 03.09.2026 is hereby quashed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed afresh, if so advised, in accordance with law, after issuing due notice to the petitioner and affording her an effective opportunity of hearing. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti