S.D. Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others)
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.18 10:50:01 +0530 2025:CGHC:12503-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 180 of 2025 S.D. Sahu S/o Late R.D. Sahu Aged About 64 Years R/o Govt. Polytechnic Gariyaband, Police Station And Post Gariyaband, Civil District Raipur And Revenue District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Science And Technology Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Technical Education, Department Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Gelus Ram Sahu Presently Posted As Principal Government Polytechnic Rudhri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 5 - M.F. Kureshi Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
6 - Smt. Usha Jain Principal, Government Polytechinc, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 7 - Prakash Kumar Pandey Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 8 - Kajal Roy Presently Posted As Principal Govt. Polytechinc, Kanker District Kanker Chhattisgarh 2 9 - Dr. Amitabh Dubey Presently Posted As Additional Director Directorate Of Technical Education Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 10 - Smt. Mamta Agrawal Head Of Department, Computer Science Govt. Polytechinc, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh 11 - R.J. Pandey Presently Posted As Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh 12 - Ashwani Kumar Khairwar Presently Posted As Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate, Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate and Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Achyut Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel for respondents No. 4, 5, 7, 9 and 12, Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for respondent / State. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 08.01.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3834/2015 (S.D. Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), 3
Decision
whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the writ petitioner was promoted on the post of Head of Department ('HOD' for short) with effect from 14.06.2007. During his promotion on the post of HOD, Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Gazetted) Service (Teaching Cadre-Polytechnic) Recruitment Rules, 2005 were applicable ('Rules of 2005' for short). The said Rules of 2005 were later on repealed and new rules namely - Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Teaching Cadre-Polytechnic) (Gazetted) Service Rules, 2014 ('Rules of 2014' for short) came into force with effect from 12.5.2014. In Schedule-IV framed under Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules of 2014, qualification and experience for promotion from the post of HOD to the post of Principal have been prescribed, by which the candidate must have three years minimum period of experience as HOD (Engineering/Technical) for eligibility of promotion and she/he also must have prescribed qualification of Bachelor's degree and Master's degree of appropriate Branch in Engineering/Technology from a recognized University/Institute with First Class or equivalent at either Bachelor's or Master's level etc. A meeting of the Departmental Promotional Committee ('DPC' for short) was convened on 27.5.2014 in which all the candidates were considered and the respondents herein were promoted on the post of Principal by Order dated 25.6.2014. However, the writ petitioner herein was not promoted on the said post of Principal, 4 holding that he did not have the prescribed educational qualifications as per Rules of 2014. ] Questioning the legality, validity and correctness of their non-promotion on the post of Principal and the promotion of the private Respondents on the said post, the writ petition herein preferred WPS No. 3834/2015, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the same vide order dated 08.01.2025. Being aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner / appellant herein has preferred this present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order impugned is devoid of merits, perverse and deserves to be set aside. The appellant's right for consideration for promotion has been violated and the juniors have been promoted. Because of the biased manner of the respondent authorities, carrier of the appellant has been spoiled as he is going to be retired in this year itself. The respondents have committed gross illegality in considering the cases of the employees for promotion under the rules of 2014 and the said Departmental Promotion Committee has considered the cases against the vacancies occurred between 2005 to 2013. The vacancies (Principal) occurred in the year 2005 to 2013 and therefore the rules, which were in existence at that point of time should have been considered. The Departmental Promotion Committee has promoted the employees contrary to the rules of 2005 and even 2014 and the employees who were not holding even the basic qualifications have been considered for promotion 5 ignoring the seniority and merit. The promotion rules of 2003 specially Rule 7(5) has been ignored and the promotion order issued in favour of the private respondents is illegal and arbitrary. The Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 27.05.2014 and on the said date, the rules of 2014 have not been printed or published in the official gazette. Under the general clauses act, there is specific provision that the rules framed by the government would come into existence only after its publication in the official gazette. In the instant case, the Departmental Promotion Committee has been convened on the basis of proposed rules, which were not notified on the date of Departmental Promotion Committee. The promotion orders have been issued de-horsing the rules even without considering the ACR of an employee and without considering the merit and seniority, and the employees have been promoted though they are not fulfilling the criteria for promotion prescribed by the Departmental Promotion Committee, even they are not fulfilling the minimum criteria prescribed by the committee. The private respondents do not fulfill the minimum requirement of their ACR for promotion. Further, it is well settled law that the vacancies which occurred prior to the amendment of the rules would be governed by the original rules and not by the amended rules. The posts which fall vacant prior to the amendment of the rules would be governed by the original rules. The same issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Kulwant Singh v/s. 6 Dayaram" 2015(3) SCC 177. Also, the Departmental Promotion Committee has considered the cases of the junior employees of the appellant and they have been promoted on the post of Principal. The appellant has been deprived from his right to consideration for promotion. The Departmental Promotion Committee has considered the eligibility as on 01.01.2014 and has considered the Rules of 2014, though the vacancies for which the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened were occurred between 2005 to 2013. The Departmental Promotion Committee ought to have considered the promotion of eligible employees on the basis of the rules which were in existence on the date when the vacancies (Principal) arose/occurred. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the appellant was sent to study M.Tech. Ed. by the department during his service period in accordance with the policy issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and AICTE issued notification to the effect that M. Tech. Ed. degree is equivalent to M.E./M.Tech degree. During the service period the appellant was having no option either to choose a course for study in accordance with the policy issued by erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, it was the department who directed the employees to study an specific course. As per the program brochure issued by National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research Bhopal for the course of Master of Technical Education (M.Tech. Ed.), "In 1985, the Institute launched a demand driven Post-Graduate 7 Programme, unique in Asia, i.e. "Master of Technical Education" under a distinguished Faculty of Technical Education of the Barkatullah University, Bhopal. About 155 senior teachers from Indian Polytechnics and Technical/Engineering Institutes abroad have successfully completed the programme. After successful completion of the programme, they have earned recognition as Professionals in the field and are contributing significantly as leaders, education managers to their respective education systems in home states and countries. Many of them occupy higher and key positions e.g. Principals, Directors, Secretaries of Examination Boards, Heading the department and Co-ordinators of Curriculum Development, Continuing Education, Training & Placement and Learning Resource Development Centres. The programme is Credit based and flexible in nature and open to sponsored eligible candidates working in technical institutions/organizations in India and abroad." The learned single judge failed to consider that the appellant is having prescribed qualification for promotion on the post of Principal as per Rules 2005 and also as per Rules 2014. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant is holding the post of incharge principal since 2007. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by 8 the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner / appellant herein observing that it is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was having qualifications for promotion on the post of Principal as per Rules of 2005 and on the date of consideration i.e. on 27.5.2014 when the cases of promotion on the post of Principal were considered, the DPC did not found the writ petitioner having the prescribed qualifications in terms of educational qualifications for the post of Principal, as per Rules of 2014. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge for considering the question whether the writ petitioner would be governed by the old Rules of 2005 or the new Rules of 2014, relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Hiamchal Pradesh and Others vs. Raj Kumar and Others (20030 3 SCC 773 whereby, 12. it has clearly been held that the rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services and also held that the observations in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, (1983) 3 SCC 284, that posts which fell vacant prior to the amendment of Rules would be governed by old Rules and not by 9 new Rules do not reflect the correct position of law. Learned Single Judge finally concluded that in light of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to herein-above, the only right for the writ petitioner to be considered for promotion would be in accordance with rules which prevail on the date on which consideration for promotion takes place. In the instant case, on 27.5.2014 when the case of promotion on the post of Principal were considered by the DPC, admittedly the writ petitioner did not have the prescribed qualifications for promotion on the post of Principal, as per Rules of 2014. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet