Karam Singh Kanwar v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed b
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.04.09 16:24:34 +0530 2025:CGHC:16156-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 232 of 2025 Karam Singh Kanwar S/o Roop Sai Aged About 61 Years Presently Working As Assistant Grade - 2, Tahsil Office Podi - Uproda, Block Podi - Uproda, District Korba Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Revenue Cum Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary Chhattisgarh State Election Commission, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 - Deputy District Election Officer Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 5 - Shani Kumar Paikra Presently Promoted As Naib Tahsildar, Koriya, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State/respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 0 7 .04.2025 1 Proceedings of this matter have been taken through Video Conferencing. 2 Heard Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 5 as well as Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. 3 By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s): “1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in WP(S) No. 947/2016. 2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 22.03.2016 (Annexure P/1 of WP) whereby the respondent no.5 has been promoted to the post of Naib Tahsildar. 3. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus 3 directing the respondents to consider the appellant/petitioner for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar with all consequential benefits.” 4 The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.947 of 2016 (Karam Singh Kanwar v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed. 5 Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that, on 04.03.2014, an advertisement was issued for appointment on the post of Naib Tehsildar wherein it was clearly mentioned that the applicant must belong to Revenue and Disaster Management Department. The petitioner who was working on the post of Assistant Grade-2 in Tahsil Office : Podi-Uproda, Distt. Korba participated in the departmental examination. However, subsequently, the appellant came to know through Right to Information that respondent No.5, who was appointed as Assistant Superintendent (Local Election) in the District Election Department on 28.07.2011 by way of creation of post by the Election Commission, has also been considered for appointment on the post of Naib Tahsildar. 6 Thereafter, the appellant made an objection regarding eligibility of respondent No.5 for appointment on the post of Naib Tahsildar. Then, respondent No.4/Deputy District Election Officer vide letter dated 16.11.2015 informed respondent No.3/Collector that 4 respondent No.5 is not included in the District Collector Cadre as per notification of the CG Election Commission and the said post is not included in the set up and despite that, the Collector overlooking the same, considered respondent No.5 as an employee of the Revenue Department. The appellant/writ petitioner made a representation on 23.11.2015 for disqualifying respondent No.5 for appointment on the post of Naib Tahsildar as he was not an employee of the Revenue Department, but his representation was not decided till filing of the writ peittion. However, respondent No.1 vide order dated 22.3.2016 promoted respondent No.5 to the post of Naib Tahsildar and posted at
Decision
District Koriya vide Annexure P/1 to the writ petition. 7 Being aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.947/2016 before the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed vide order dated 06.12.2023. 8 Challenging the aforesaid order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 9 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that the appellant was qualified and eligible, but respondent No.5 who was not even an employee of the Revenue Department had been considered for promotion and promoted to the post of Naib 5 Tahsildar in violation of the guidelines issued by the CG Election Commission through notification that the post of Assistant Superintendent (Local Election) was a post created for specific purpose and the same was not included in the set up of the Revenue Department. It has been contended that respondent No.4 also informed the Collector through letter dated 16.11.2015 that respondent No.5 was not included in the District Collector Cadre as per notification of the CG Election Commission and the said post was not included in the set up, despite that respondent No.3 overlooking the same and the objection raised by the appellant, treated respondent No.5 as an employee of the Revenue Department and considered him for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar, hence, the action of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary, against the well settled principles of service jurisprudence and de horse the principle of natural justice. As such, the instant appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set- aside. 10 On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and jointly submit that after receipt of applications from the candidates including the appellant and respondent No.5, complaints regarding disqualification of respondent No.5 for the post of Naib Tehsildar 6 was made by one Anand Poddar, Assistant Grade-II, District Office, Korba to respondent No.1 on 30.09.2015 and taking cognizance on the aforesaid complaint, certain queries were made from the Collector, Korba vide letter dated 14.10.2015. Thereafter, similar objection/complaint was also made by the appellant on 09.11.2015 and looking to the fact that there was no response on the said complaint, another similar objection/complaint was made by the appellant , upon which a reminder letter dated 10.11.2015 referring to earlier letter dated 14.10.2015 was sent to the Collector, Korba seeking certain information as sought in the letter dated 14.10.2015. Thereafter, another reminder dated 27.11.2015was sent to the Collector, Korba. Vide letter dated 23.11.2015 the Collector, Korba supplied the information as sought vide letter dated 14.10.2015 by enclosing the enquiry report prepared by respondent No.4, in which it was categorically mentioned that the appointment of respondent No.5 was made on the post of Assistant Superintendent, Local Election, from the establishment of Revenue Department, therefore, in such circumstances, it is not proper and appropriate not to deem the respondent No.5 as an employee of the Revenue Department, meaning thereby that respondent No.5 has been treated as an employee of the Revenue Department and accordingly, the objection/complaint made as above deserve to be rejected. Hence, the complaints were duly forwarded to respondent No.1 for necessary action. 7 Based upon the aforesaid submission made by the Collector and inquiry report, the objection/complaint made by the appellant and one Anand Poddar were duly rejected vide order dated 09.12.2015, which has not been challenged by the appellant and therefore, the same has attained finality. It has been further contended that in the enquiry report, respondent No.4 duly informed that vide guidelines dated 09.01.2003 issued by the CG State Election Commission, the procedure for posting on the post of Assistant Superintendent, Local Election, was prescribed and as per the said procedure, a panel containing three names of suitable candidates having requisite qualification and experiences for consideration to the post of Assistant Superintendent was forwarded by the Collector and District Election Officer, Korba vide letter dated 03.04.2011 and in turn, vide order dated 01.07.2011, respondent No.2 considering the parameters and procedure prescribed for posting on the post of Assistant Superintendent vide letter dated 05.10.2004 accorded its approval provisionally. It has been further contended that respondent No.5 has rightly been promoted to the post of Naib Tehsildar considering him to be an employee of the Revenue Department and the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed impugned order, which does not call for any interference. 11 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. 8 12 After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “11. It is clear from all the aforesaid documents that respondent No.5 is an employee of District Collectorate (Food Branch) and he was promoted as Assistant Superintendent (Local Election) on temporary basis until further orders. The Collector, Korba has clearly stated that he is an employee of the Revenue Department and accordingly, his name was considered for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar. In view of the above, the promotion given to respondent No.5 to the said post is held to be in accordance with law and as per terms and conditions of the advertisement. 12. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, the present petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.” 13 Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perusing the impugned order, it has been reflected that the respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of Naib Tahsildar vide order dated 22.03.2016 and according to the appellant, since respondent No.5 is not working in the Revenue Department, he is not entitled for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar. It is further 9 reflected that vide order dated 28.07.2011, respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent (Local Election) provisionally until further orders and when complaint was made by the appellant and another employee, queries were made from the Collector, Korba by the Under Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Raipur and in response to the above letter, the Collector, Korba after obtaining report from the Dy. District Election Officer, Korba and the relevant documents, vide letter dated 23.11.2015 informed the Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management, Raipur since respondent No.5 has been working on the post of Assistant Grade-3 and Assistant Grade-2 in the establishment under the Revenue Department and his promotion had been made to the post of Assistant Superintendent (Local Election) from the post of Assistant Grade-2 in the Revenue Department, it would be inappropriate if he was not considered to be an employee of the Revenue Department. Thus, it is apparent clear that respondent No.5 was an employee of District Collectorate (Food Branch) and he was promoted as Assistant Superintendent (Local Election) on temporary basis until further orders and the promotion given to respondent No.5 to the said post was held to be in accordance with law and as per terms and conditions of the advertisement. 14 Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has 10 passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons and as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.947 of 2016 (Karam Singh Kanwar v. State of Chhattisgarh and others). 15 In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu