Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 5 2025:CGHC:14736 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 751 of 2022 1. K.D. Bhaskar S/o Late Shri Ramaram Bhaskar Aged About 49 Years Posted As Lab Technician, State Food Testing Laboratory, (FDA) Kalibadi, Raipur , District Raipur , Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner(s) 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department , Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya , Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. The Controller Food And Drugs Administration, Indrawati Bhavan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer Order on Board By Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 27/03/2025 1. By the present writ petition,the petitioner, who is presently posted as Lab Technician, State Food Testing Laboratory (FDA), is seeking quashment of the order dated 14/01/2022, passed by the respondent No.2, by which, the representation of the petitioner claiming promotion from the post of Lab Technician to the post of Assistant Public Analyst has been rejected on the ground that he is not having the requisite qualification of 2 / 5 graduation degree as prescribed in Scheduled 3 of the Chhattisgarh Food and Drugs Administration (Non-Gazatted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2011, which was amended in the year 2019. 2. (a) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Lab Assistant in the year 1993. The post of Lab Technician is Class III (Technical). The service condition of the petitioner governed with the Rules namely; the Chhattisgarh Food and Drugs Administration (Non-Gazatted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2011(for short ‘the Rules, 2011’). Rule 6 of the Rules, 2011 provides for method of recruitment in which, there is a provision for promotion of the members of service as specified in column 2 of Scheduled IV which is provided that the employees who have completed three years of service as Lab Assistant are entitled for promotion to the higher post as Junior Scientific Assistant. Scheduled I of Rule 5 shows the total number of posts and classification of posts. The post of Lab Assistant is classified as Class III (Technical), however, the petitioner was not promoted to the next promotion post. (b) Learned counsel would further submit that subsequently, the Government amended the Rules, 2011 in the year 2019 and incorporated the amendments in Schedules I, II, III and IV, wherein it has been provided that the post of Assistant Public Analyst will be filled up 67% by promotion from the post of Lab Technician and the eligibility criteria for promotion is five years as Lab Technician and as per the provisions of the C.G. Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2003. (c) Learned counsel would also submit that on 27/08/2010, the petitioner posted in the State Testing Laboratory and the service of the 3 / 5 petitioner has been confirmed after completion of probation period. As per the Rules, 2011, 33 % post have to be filled up by promotion as such, the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant Public Analyst, as the posts were lying vacant. When no action has been taken by the authorities in the year 2021, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent authorities for consideration of his candidature for promotion on the post of Assistant Public Analyst. The petitioner stated in the said representation that the meeting of the Department Promotion Committee (DPC) has not been convened since a long time and promotion from the post of Lab Technician to the post of Assistant Public Analyst has not been made, despite the fact that the petitioner was entitled for promotion in the year 2021. The petitioner also stated in the representation that he is entitled for promotion as per the Rules, 2011. (d) According to the learned counsel, when the representation was not considered by the authorities he approached this Court by filing WPS
Decision
No.6648 of 2021 which was disposed of by order dated 7-12-2021 with a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of Assistant Public Analyst. Thereafter, by the order impugned the respondent authorities decided the representation of the petitioner stating that as per the amended Rules, 2019 the petitioner is not having the requisite qualification and hence his candidature cannot be considered for promotion. The petitioner would submit that he is entitled for promotion as per the Rules, 2011 and the amended Rules, 2019 dated 10-7-2019 will not be applicable to his case. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that 4 / 5 the representation of the petitioner has been considered and decided in accordance with the Rules, 2011 which was amended in 2019. He would submit that for promotion to the post of Assistant Public Analyst, five years experience is required and the educational qualification is Graduation degree in Chemistry or Biochemistry whereas the petitioner is not having the said qualification and hence he cannot claim promotion to the post of Assistant Public Analyst. He would also submit that the petitioner preferred writ petition in the year 2021 and the representation is also submitted on 12-8-2021, therefore, his case has been considered as per the Rules, 2011 amended in 2019. The petitioner never raised any claim for promotion when the Rules, 2011 were in existence and hence the claim of the petitioner at a belated stage is not maintainable and the petition deserves to be dismissed and the representation of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents. 5. It is an admitted fact that the Rules, 2011 were amended in the year 2019 and as per the amended Rules, 2019 for promotion to the post of Assistant Public Analyst five years experience is required and the qualification for the said post of Graduation degree in Chemistry or Bio Chemistry, but the petitioner is not having such qualification. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 7-12-2021 in WPS No.6648 of 2021 the respondent authorities considered the representation dated 12-8-2021 and rejected the same vide order dated 14-1-2022. The Rules, 2011 amended in the year 2019, the amended rule applied and the 5 / 5 representatioin has righly been rejected observing that as per the amendment Rules, 2019 the petitioner is not having the requisite qualification. The order impugned is just and proper and there is no ilelgality at all. 6. Delay has always been considered vital in service matters especially with regard to promotion. In P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamilnadu1 the Supreme Court has held that it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion under Article 226 that the Court should not entertain claims regarding seniority after an approximate period of six months from the date of cause of action to prevent clogging the dockets of the Court and which would impede the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances timely. In the case at hand, though the petitioner is seeking promotion as per the Rules, 2011 but he approached the authority by claiming promotion only in the year 2021. The petitioner has not explained the delay as to why he has not approached the authority and this Court within time though he has not been granted promotion till 2019 when the Rules, 2011 were in existence. 7. Considering the above said well settled principles, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: 2025.03.28 13:11:15 +0530 1 (1975) 1 SCC 152