Smt. Barkha Sharma v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Pramukha Sachiv Vidhi Awam Vidhai Kary Vibhag, Mantralay
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2025:CGHC:38166 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2416 of 2022 Smt. Barkha Sharma Petitioner In Person W/o Shri Arun Kumar Sharma Aged About 49 Years Address Karyalay Mahaadhivakta Chhattisgarh Uchacha Nayayalay Prangan Bodari, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Mo. No. 7000051242. versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Pramukha Sachiv Vidhi Awam Vidhai Kary Vibhag, Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner 2 - Mahaadhivakta Karyalay Through Awar Sachiv Karyalay Mahaadhivakta Chhattisgarh. Uchacha Nayayalay Prangan Bodari Bilaspur 3 - Sanjay Ekka S/o Albeat Ekka Aged About 44 Years Address Sahayak Varg - 3 Vidhi Awam Vidhai Kary Vibhag, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh. Naya Raipur 4 - Girish Kumar Yadu S/o Ambika Prasad Yadu Aged About 46 Years Address Sahayak Varg - 3 Vidhi Awam Vidhai Kary Vibhag, Mantralay, Mahanadi Chhattisgarh. Naya Bhawan, Nagar Raipur Atal 5 - Dinesh Patel S/o Late Kaliram Patel Aged About 48 Years Address Sahayak Varg - 3 Vidhi Awam Vidhai Kary Vibhag, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 4427 of 2024 Sunil Kumar Sewte S/o Shri Samman Lal Sewte Aged About 47 Years R/o Gali No. 2, Jabdapara, New Sarkanda, Police Station - Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Petitioner 2 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur(C.G.) 2 - The Advocate General Chhattisgarh Through The Under Secretary, Office Of Advocate General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Madan Signh Thakur S/o Netram Thakur Aged About 42 Years Presently Working As Asst. Grade-Iii, Office Of Advocate General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Karuna Tiwari W/o Shri Amit Tiwar Aged About 47 Years Presently Working As Asst. Grade-Iii, Office Of Advocate General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
5 - Sanjay Ekka S/o Shri Albert Ekka Aged About 44 Years Presently Working As Asst. Grade-Iii, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Girish Kumar Yadu S/o Shri Ambika Prasad Yadu Aged About 46 Years Presently Working As Asst. Grade-Iii, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 7 - Dinesh Patel S/o Lt. Shri Kaliram Patel Aged About 48 Years Presently Working As Asst. Grade-Iii, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 3550 of 2022 Jagdish Prasad Rawat S/o Shri Ranjan Lal Rawat Aged About 52 Years Presently Working As Peon In The Office Of Advocate General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 2 - The Advocate General Chhattisgarh, Through The Under Secretary, Office Of Advocate General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Madan Singh Thakur S/o Netram Thakur Aged About 42 Years Presently Working As Asst. Grade-Iii, Office Of Advocate General High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Karuna Tiwari W/o Shri Amit Tiwari Aged About 47 Years Presently Working As Asst. Grage-Iii, Office Of Advocate General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sanjay Ekka S/o Shri Albert Ekka, Aged About 44 Years Presently Working As Assistant Grade-Iii, Department Of Law Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Girish Kumar Yadu S/o Shri Ambika Prasad Yadu Aged About 46 Years Presently Working As Assistant Grade-Iii, Department Of Law Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 7 - Dinesh Patel S/o Shri Ambika Prasad Yadu Aged About 48 Years Presently Working As Assistant Grade-Iii, Department Of Law Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 3800 of 2022 1 - Sooraj Bhargav S/o Shri Bhagwat Prasad Bhargawa Aged About 48 Years Presently All Petitioners Are Working As Peon In The Office Of Advovate General High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Hitendra Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Hemant Kumar Yadav Aged About 50 Years Presently All Petitioners Are Working As Peon In The Office Of Advovate General High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Omprakash Kesharwani S/o Shri R.K. Kesharwani Aged About 44 Years Presently All Petitioners Are Working As Peon In The Office Of Advovate General High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Dinesh Kumar Tandon S/o Shri Bhanupratap Tandon Aged About 45 Years Presently All Petitioners Are Working As Peon In The Office Of Advovate 4 General High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ram Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Runu Ram Yadav Aged About 47 Years Presently All Petitioners Are Working As Peon In The Office Of Advovate General High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. K. Mohini Raj W/o Shri K. Nehemiah Raj Aged About 44 Years Presently All Petitioners Are Working As Peon In The Office Of Advovate General High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Office Of The Advocate General Chhattisgarh Through The Under Secretary, Office Of Advocate General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sanjay Ekka S/o Shri Albert Ekka Aged About 44 Years Presently Working As Assistant Grade-Iii, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Girish Kumar Yadu S/o Shri Ambika Prasad Yadu Aged About 46 Years Presently Working As Assistant Grade-Iii, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Dinesh Patel S/o Lt. Shri Kaliram Patel Aged About 48 Years Presently Working As Assistant Grade-Iii, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan, Advocate Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate Mr. Palash Jha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General 5 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01/08/2025 1. These writ petitions have been filed by Class IV employees working in the Office of the Advocate General. They have challenged the legality, validity, and propriety of the promotion orders dated 25.03.2022 and 09.02.2022, as well as the Gradation List dated 09.02.2022, whereby juniors to the petitioners were promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-III, while the claims of the petitioners were rejected. 2. Brief facts of the present case are as under:- a. The petitioners were appointed to Class IV posts (Peon, Daftari, Farash, etc.) in the Office of the Advocate General, Chhattisgarh, under the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs. Their appointments and subsequent regularization were made in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Law and Legislative Affairs Department (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983 (“the Rules of 1983”). b. The petitioners fulfill all eligibility conditions for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-III, including:- 1. Completion of five years’ service on the post of Peon or equivalent; 2. Higher Secondary Examination Certificate; & 3. Diploma in Computer Education as per Schedule IV of the Rules of 1983. c. In the earlier rounds of litigation, specifically in WPS No. 6 2760/2015 and WPS No.3360/2015, this Court enhanced the promotional quota from Class IV to Assistant Grade- III from 10% to 25%, as per the circular dated 23.05.1996. The said direction was made applicable to both departments uniformly and had attained finality. d. Pursuant thereto, the respondent authorities published a gradation list on 09.02.2022. e. A Departmental Promotion Committee (for short, DPC) was convened on 23.03.2022; consequently, the promotion order dated 25.03.2022 was issued. However, the petitioners were excluded from consideration, and the private respondents who were juniors to the petitioners were considered. f. The ground taken by the respondents was that the office of the Advocate General and the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs are distinct entities; therefore, a separate allocation of promotional posts (13 and 28, respectively) was made by the DPC. g. The petitioners challenge this segregation as arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the Rules of 1983, which recognise no such segregation. 3. Details of the petitioners and their positions in the Gradation List as on 01.04.2021 are as under:- Sl. Name Date of Date of Position in No. appointment regularization gradation list (as on 01.04.2021) 01. Smt. Barkha 12.05.2006 28.12.2012 14 7 Sharma 02. Shri Jagdish 05.05.2006 28.12.2012 05 Prasad Rawat 03. Shri Sooraj 05.05.2006 28.12.2012 10 Bhargav 04. Shir 10.04.2007 28.12.2012 16 Omprakash Keshwani 05. Shri Hitendra 17.04.2007 28.12.2012 17 Kumar Yadav 06. Shri 09.04.2007 28.12.2012 19 Ramkumar Yadav 07. Shri Dinesh 16.05.2007 28.12.2012 20 Kumar Tandon 08. Smt. K. 18.05.2007 28.12.2012 21 Mohini Raj 09. Shri Sunil 09.05.2006 28.12.2012 13 Sewte 4. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned Senior Advocate leading the argument on behalf of the petitioners, would argue as under:- A. The action of the respondents in denying promotion to the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the statutory service rules as well as Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8 B. The petitioners, though posted in the Office of the Advocate General, were appointed under the Chhattisgarh Law and Legislative Affairs Department (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 1983, which apply uniformly to all Class IV employees working either in the office of the Advocate General or the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs. No rule prescribes a separate promotion channel or quota for the two offices. C. The petitioners fulfill all eligibility criteria prescribed under Schedule IV of the Rules of 1983, including a Minimum of five years of regular service on Class IV posts; Possession of a Higher Secondary Certificate and Diploma in Computer Education; & Proficiency in Hindi typing. D. The Co-ordinate Bench in WPS Nos. 2760/2015 and 3360/2015 had enhanced the promotional quota from 10% to 25% for Class IV employees seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-III. These directions were general in nature and intended for all eligible Class IV employees across both departments, without any segregation. Despite the said order, the respondent authorities failed to consider the claims of the petitioners for promotion. E. The Gradation list dated 09.02.2022 was prepared without proper consideration of the petitioners’ service records and 9 qualifications. The DPC held on 23.03.2022, relied on the flawed gradation list and failed to assign valid reasons for excluding the petitioners. F. Several private respondents who were admittedly juniors to the petitioners were promoted to Assistant Grade-III. This not only violates the statutory rules but also violates Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality and non-discrimination in public employment. G. The segregation of 13 posts for the Office of the Advocate General and 28 posts for the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs was in contravention of the Rules of 1983. Further, the administrative notifications or circulars cannot override the statutory service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. H. The petitioners’ appointment letters, regularization orders, and circulars issued by the Law and Legislative Affairs Department clearly indicate that both offices fall under a common administrative and recruitment structure. Even the consolidated gradation list was published. I. In conclusion, Ms. Singhai submitted that the entire exercise of the bifurcation of posts, the preparation of the gradation list, and the denial of promotion to eligible petitioners is arbitrary and bad in law. She emphasised that the Rules of 1983 apply 10 uniformly to both sets of Class IV employees. The eligibility criteria and appointing authority are the same. There exists no provision in the Rules for departmental bifurcation of promotional posts; thus, she would pray to allow all petitions. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, would oppose the submissions put forth by Ms. Singhai, and made the following submissions:- A. The Office of the Advocate General and the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs are administratively distinct entities, each with separate budgetary allocation, staff strength, and sanctioned posts. Hence, promotional opportunities within each department are decided independently on the basis of available vacancies and internal merit. B. The Head of Department for the Advocate General’s office is different from that of the Law and Legislative Department. As such, the DPC was within its rights to allocate separate quotas for promotion. He also submitted that most of the petitioners were found ineligible by the DPC for reasons such as non- fulfillment of the educational qualifications or lack of the requisite experience. The DPC considered the service records and qualifications of each candidate before making its recommendation. He contended that the DPC has the 11 discretion in allocating available promotional posts depending on the department-wise requirements and staffing structure. C. With regard to the allocation of 13 posts to the Advocate General’s office and 28 posts to the Law and Legislative Department, he submitted that the same was an administrative arrangement made in good faith. He further contended that the petitioners did not challenge the DPC resolution or the administrative order whereby the segregation of posts was approved. D. The DPC convened on 23.03.2022 thoroughly examined the eligibility of all candidates, including the petitioners. The DPC scrutinized their service records, educational qualifications and experience and only those who met all criteria were recommended for promotion. E. Regarding the directions issued in WPS Nos. 2760/2015 and 3360/2015, Mr. Gupta submitted that while the quota for promotion from Class IV to Assistant Grade-III was indeed enhanced to 25% from 10 %, but there was no explicit bar or instruction against allocating posts department-wise. The State interpreted the said order to apply proportionately to the respective departments based on their existing sanctioned strength. F. In conclusion, Mr. Gupta prayed for the dismissal of these writ 12 petitions, as the promotions were granted in accordance with law, and the petitioners’ claims are untenable both on facts and law. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 7. The Rules of 1983, particularly Rules 11, 13, and 14, read with Schedules I and IV, govern the recruitment and promotion of Class IV employees to Assistant Grade-III. These rules do not differentiate between the employees of the Advocate General’s office and the Law and Legislative Department. Further, the rules prescribe uniform eligibility conditions and a common DPC. The appointment orders, regularization orders and the consolidated gradation list dated 09.02.2022 reflect that both sets of employees are treated under a common administrative umbrella. 8. The promotion quota was enhanced to 25% pursuant to the order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench in WPS 2760/2015 & WPS 3360/2015, and there was no direction or indication of bifurcation of posts between the Office of Advocate General and the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs. 9. The segregation of 13 posts for the Office of the Advocate General and 28 posts for the Law and Legislative Department appears to be based solely on an administrative decision not supported by the Rules of 1983, and no such Government order has been placed on record. 13 10. It is a settled principle of law that executive instructions, circulars, or administrative orders cannot override statutory service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Hence, any such bifurcation made in violation of the Rules is illegal and unsustainable. 11. Admittedly, the petitioners were eligible for promotion. The DPC failed to assign valid reasons for declaring them ineligible. On the other hand, juniors were promoted, rendering the decision arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 12. Taking into consideration the fact that the action of the respondents in segregating promotional posts department-wise and in not considering the claims of eligible petitioners is arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the Rules of 1983 and the judgments of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petitions are partly allowed in the following terms:- i. The promotion orders dated 25.03.2022 shall not be disturbed in respect of the private respondents, who have already been promoted. However, the respondents are directed to conduct a Review Departmental Promotion Committee within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of this order. ii. The eligibility of the petitioners shall be reconsidered without departmental bifurcation, strictly in accordance with the Rules of 1983. iii. The eligible candidates, including the petitioners, 14 shall be promoted to the post of Assistant Grade- III from the date when their juniors were promoted. The promoted employees shall be entitled to notional seniority from 25.3.2022 according to their merit, but they shall not be entitled to the arrears of salary, as on that date, they were not borne in the department. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim