1 2026:CGHC:20112 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3777 of 2026 1 - Chandra Prakash Bharadwaj S/o Mahendra Kumar Bharadwaj Aged About 35 Years Post Constable (347), Posted At Police Station- Saliha, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Permanent Resident Of Village- Dhruwakari, Tahsil- Pachpedi, Police Station- Pachpedi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police - Chhattisgarh District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General Of Police- Bilaspur Range Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Bhagat, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy.G.A.. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 30/04/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce entire records pertaining to instant matter. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably in the nature of Certiorari, quashing and setting aside the final BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 seniority list dated 22/04/2026 issued by the respondents for promotion from the post of Constable to Head Constable in District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, to the extent it places the petitioner at Sl. No. 60; 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to re-fix the seniority of the petitioner in accordance with his date of initial appointment i.e. 27/10/2010 and place him at sl. No. 36, above his juniors, namely Lilesh Kumar Sahu and Dilip Kumar Tenduve (who have bee appointed later vide 02/11/2010 and 08/11/2020 respectively); 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Further direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head Constable strictly in accordance with his rightful seniority position; 10.5 That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondents authorities have initiated the proceedings of promotion from the post of Constable to Head Constable and according to the rules applicable to the petitioner, promotion is to be ordered based on the seniority. Petitioner’s name has been considered by authorities for promotion as he also fell in zone of consideration, however, at the time of preparation of list by respondents authorities of eligible candidates, name of petitioners have been placed at Sr. No.60. He contended that respondents authorities have prepared the list only on the basis of seniority of the Constables in their cadre. He contended that 3 persons/employees placed at Sr. No.36 and 37 of the same list have been appointed subsequent to petitioner, therefore, they are juniors to petitioners, however, they have been placed much above to petitioner, therefore, direction be issued to respondents authorities to place the name of petitioner above Lilesh Kumar Sahu mentioned at Sr. No.36. 3. Learned State counsel submits that this is select list and not seniority list. The authorities have prepared the select list based on the seniority of employees/candidates who have been eligible, however, petitioner has not placed any documents to show that petitioners has approached the authorities by way of submitting representation. If petitioner submits representation raising his grievance as raised in this writ petition, then grievance of petitioner could have been considered in appropriate manner. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in view of the submission of learned State counsel, he may be permitted to submit representation raising his grievances as raised in this writ petition and direction be issued to respondent No.4 to consider and take decision on the representation within specified time frame and further direction be issued to authorities that till the representation to be submitted by petitioner is decided, order of promotion of candidates, junior in the cadre based on the date of appointment of petitioner, shall not be made. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 4 6. Perusal of the Annexure P-2 would show that name of Lilesh Kumar Sahu and Dilip Tenduwe are mentioned at Sr. No.37 and 38 respectively and their date of appointment is 02.11.2010 and 08.11.2010 respectively. Name of petitioner is placed at Sr. No.228 in Annexure P-2 and date of appointment of petitioner in service is not mentioned and in column of home district it is mentioned that service book is not received. Petitioner along with writ petition has enclosed the order of appointment as Annexure P-7, which is dated 27.10.2010 and as submitted by counsel for petitioner, thereafter, petitioner has immediately join the service. 7. In the aforementioned facts of the case in the opinion of this Court respondent No.3 and 4 would be appropriate authority to consider the grievance as raised by petitioner in this writ petition, therefore, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition permitting petitioner to submit comprehensive representation before respondents No.3 and 4 within a period of 10 days and in the event petitioner submits such representation, the concerned authority shall consider and take decision on the representation to be submitted by petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within further period of two weeks thereafter. 8. Considering the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the order of promotion can be issued at any moment, purely as an interim measure, it is directed that till representation submitted by petitioner is decided, the respondents authorities shall not issue any order of promotion of the employee, who have been appointed subsequent to the date of appointment of petitioner. 5 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram