Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Department Of Women And Child
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:46184 NAFR NIRMALA RAO HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2709 of 2021 1 - Smt. Priyanka Thakur (Keshar), W/o Shri Pankaj Singh Keshar, Aged About 40 Years R/o. Cedar - 73, Boriya Kala Housing Board Colony, Near Shadani Darbar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through - Its Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 5640 of 2021
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Priyanka Thakur (Keshar) W/o Shri Pankaj Singh Keshar Aged About 40 Years R/o Cedar - 73, Boriya Kala Housing Board Colony, Near Shadani Darbar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondent/ State For Respondent No.2 : : : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Abhishek Thakur, Advocate. Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy.G.A. Shri Anand Mohan Tiwari and Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.09.2025 1. In WPS No.2709 of 2021, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 24-05-2021 (Annexure P-1). 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. In WPS No.5640 of 2021, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the recommendations made by the Review DPC dated 13-10-2018 (Annexure P-1) or in alternative the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct 3 the respondent state to declare the post on which the petitioner has been promoted as supernumerary post. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Director in the Department of Women and Child Development. She would contend that the name of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Director by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in its meeting convened on 10.6.2013 and she was found suitable for promotion to the said post. Accordingly, an order of promotion was issued on 1.7.2013. She would submit that the petitioner joined the promoted post. She would contend that after seven years, surprisingly, an order was issued by respondent No.1 on 24.5.2021, whereby the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Assistant Director on the basis of a review DPC held on 23.10.2018. She would contend that the order impugned has civil consequences and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. She would contend that the reversion to a lower post amounts to a major penalty and no departmental enquiry was conducted according to the provisions of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘CCA Rules’). She would pray to quash the order dated 24.5.2021 including the review DPC proceedings convened in this 4 regard. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that the criteria for promotion to the post of Deputy Director was seniority-cum-merit. They would submit that vide notification dated 26.11.2012, the reservation roster was revised, and the percentage of reservation for Scheduled Tribe candidates was increased from 23% to 33%. This revised percentage was not taken into account by the earlier DPC, which led to the cancellation of the promotion order issued in favour of the petitioner. They would submit that since the order of promotion was result of a mistake, therefore, there was no necessity to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and vide order dated 24.5.2021, review DPC was convened and accordingly, mistake was rectified. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner, who was holding the post of Assistant Director in the Department of Women and Child Development was considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Director by the Departmental Promotion Committee and an order of promotion was issued on 1.7.2013. The petitioner joined the promoted post and discharged duties thereon for over 7 years. Thereafter, an order dated 24.5.2021 (Annexure-P/1) was issued, whereby the petitioner was reverted to the post of 5 Assistant Director. It appears that the petitioner was never informed about the review DPC convened on 23.10.2018, in which a decision was taken to cancel the promotion order earlier issued in favour of the petitioner. Furthermore, the State took about 3 years from the date of review DPC to issue the reversion order dated 24.5.2021. Although, the respondents have assigned various reasons for cancellation of order of promotion of the petitioner, since the order of reversion has civil consequences, the respondent authorities were under an obligation to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. According to Rule 10 of CCA Rules, 1966, reversion to a lower post is a major penalty and such an order cannot be passed without holding a departmental enquiry and affording sufficient opportunity of hearing. 7. Considering the above-discussed facts, the review DPC convened on 23.10.2018 pertaining to cancellation of promotion order of the petitioner and the consequential order dated 24.5.2021 issued by respondent No.1, are hereby quashed. However, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to take an appropriate decision afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if so advised. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s), both the petitions are disposed of. Sd/- Nimmi (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge