1 2026:CGHC:19205 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5641 of 2022 1 - Ved Prakash Chandrawanshi S/o Bain Lal Chandrawanshi Aged About 34 Years Presently Posted At - Training Officer (Rac), ITI Name - Govt Iti Chhuriya (Chhattisgarh) R/o - Village And Post Mendha, Tahsil - Dongargarh District - Rajanandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department On Man Power Planning Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Employment And Training Indrawatibhawan Block 4 First Floor, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director (Trainee) Directorate Of Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhawan Block 4 First Floor, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Faisal Akhtar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo Samant, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to convene a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Training Superintendent according to the Recruitment Rules. 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier WP(S) No.5043/2020 was filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to convene a DPC and the petition was disposed of vide order dated 08.01.2021 with a direction to the respondent authorities to take a decision so far as convening a DPC at the earliest in terms of the Chhattisgarh Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2003 within a period of four months. It is contended that the petitioner made a representation before the respondent authorities and immediately thereafter, a show-cause notice contemplating departmental enquiry was issued. He would submit that a show-cause notice was challenged by the petitioner by filing writ petition and finally quashed in WP(S) No.6033 of 2021 and other connected matters. Writ appeal preferred by the State was also dismissed. He would contend that till date, no decision has been taken by the respondent authorities for convening DPC for promotion to the post of Training Superintendent, therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to convene the DPC at the earliest. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ State would submit that earlier a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and show-notice was quashed but at the same time, liberty was reserved with the State to proceed afresh in accordance with law. He would contend that again show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and matter is currently sub judice before the High Court. He would contend that as the departmental enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner, his name cannot be considered for promotion at this stage. He would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5. According to service rules, the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of Training Superintendent. The name of the petitioner could not be considered for promotion by DPC on account of pendency of departmental enquiry. If departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner, the respondent authorities are directed to proceed with the DPC and place the name of the petitioner in a sealed envelop(s). The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent authorities within a period of 120 days from today. The decision shall be taken by the respondent authorities with regard to promotion of the petitioner after conclusion of the writ petition pending against the subsequent show-cause notice and charge-sheet issued by the department. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha