Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22419-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.05.30 11:43:22 +0530 WA No. 343 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondents) 2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General Of Police Surguja Range, Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh 4 - President Promotion Committee, Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, North Region, Surguja Range, Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh 5 - Superintendent Of Police Surajpur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Superintendent Of Police Balrampur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellant(s) 1 - Avinash Singh S/o Shri Rakesh Singh Aged About 35 Years Constable No. 61, Presently Working And Posted As Head Constable At Police Station - Bishrampur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
2 - Vishal Mishra S/o Shri Sant Vilash Mishra Aged About 35 Years Constable No. 168, Presently Working And Posted As Head Constable At Police Station - Pratappur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Ram Pravesh Singh Aged About 35 Years Constable No. 83, Presently Working And Posted As Head Constable At Police Station - Bishrampur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 4 - Shrinath Singh S/o Shri Ganesh Singh Aged About 46 Years Constable No. 205, Presently Working And Posted As Head Constable At Police Station - Pratappur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Indrajeet Singh S/o Shri Tejbahadur Singh Aged About 42 Years Constable No. 217, Presently Working And Posted As Head Constable At Police Station - Pratappur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Ravinand Singh S/o Shri Nirmal Singh Aged About 38 Years Constable No. 257, Presently Working And Posted As Head Constable At Police Station - Jhilmili, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Vivekanand Singh S/o Shri Kripa Shankar Singh Aged About 40 Years Constable No. 208, Presently Working And Posted As Head Constable At Police Station - Surajpur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Ramnivas Tiwari S/o Late Shri Govind Prasad Tiwari Aged About 43 Years Constable No. 290, Presently Working And Posted As Head Constable At Police Station - Bishrampur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board Chief Justice , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the appellants on I.A. No.02/2025 is an application for condonation of delay of 101 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.02/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and 3 delay is condoned. The appeal is heard finally. 3. This writ appeal is presented against the order dated 13.12.2024 (Avinash Singh & others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6022 of 2021, whereb, the writ petition filed by writ petitioners /
Decision
respondents herein was disposed of by learned Single Judge. 4. The facts of the case according to the appellants is that the respondents (original petitioners), who are holding the substantive post of Head Constable have preferred the above said writ petition (WP(S) No. 6022 of 2021) by stating that, in the year 2012 their names were declared eligible to participate in the promotion process for the post of Head Constable and subsequently they have been declared passed for promotion on the post of Head Constable and their seniority list was declared vide order dated 07.05.2013, in which, they have been over and above to those who have been declared passed in the year 2013. The respondents/petitioners have averred that, they joined on the post of Head Constable after issuance of the order dated 30.05.2013 by the Superintendent of Police, Surajpur (CG) and by the SOP No. 25/2021 dated 06.08.2021 the State Government has made a rule for promotion from Constable to Head Constable and Head Constable to Assistant Sub Inspector, which is Chhattisgarh Police Karyapalik (Arakshak Se Pradhan Arakshak Aur Pradhan Arakshak Se Sahayak Up Nirikshak) Padonnati Manak Sanchalan 4 Prakirya, 2021. The respondents have stated that, office of the Superintendent of Police, Surajpur has published joint seniority list on unit level for promotion examination, 2021 from the post of Head Constable to Assistant Sub Inspector, in which, their names have been shown below to their juniors, therefore, respondent No. 3 made representation before appellant No. 3, which has been rejected vide order dated 01.09.2021 on the ground that the seniority has been fixed as per SOP dated 06.08.2021. It has been averred by the respondents that, office of the Superintendent of Police, Surajpur has again issued seniority list for promotion examination, 2021 from the post of Head Constable to Assistant Sub Inspector, where, they submitted claim/objections, however, without considering their claim, the respondents (appellants herein) have declared the list of eligible candidates for participating in promotion examination 2021 and subsequently thereafter, physical test was conducted on 25.09.2021 and on the same day result has been declared and the written exam has been fixed for 26.09.2021. The respondents/writ petitioners have contended that they have again submitted representation and requested to allow them to participate in promotion examination, 2021 to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, but till date no response has been given by the respondents nor the claim of the writ petitioners has been considered and decided. 5. Thereafter, the appellants had contested the case and filed return 5 in the said petition, wherein, it has been stated that through the writ petitioners had cleared the promotion examination in the year 2012, however, there were no vacant post and therefore, their names were not included in the eligible list issued by the Range Office and as in the year 2013 when there were vacant post available the eligible list has been published on 07.05.2013 wherein the names of the writ petitioners who passed from the previous year 2012 have been kept at the top, followed by the names of the candidates who passed in the year 2013. After the publication of district wise merit list of all the district the seniority has been determined on the basis of promotion order issued from the districts. The rules regarding seniority determination on the basis of promotion orders issued from the districts. The appellants have stated that the SOP No. 25/2021 has been issued in respect of the present promotion process. Rule 5 provides for determination of seniority, in which, it is mentioned that that the seniority of a person promoted to the post of Head Constable where the departmental promotion is made on the basis of selection by the committee then the seniority of the persons so promoted shall be in the order in which they are recommended (in the order of their names in the merit list) for such promotion by the Committee. Determination was to be done, but to which the Police Headquarter vide its letter dated 28.08.2021 it was directed through Point No. 2 mentioned that even after making all efforts in many units, the original selection / merit is not available. In such a 6 situation appointment/seniority may be determined on the basis of promotion. It is submitted that the date of promotion order is considered from every district and if the date of promotion order is same, then the date of appointment and if the date of appointment are also same, then seniority has been determined on the basis of date of birth. It is further submitted that the seniority list was prepared as per the guidance/instruction dated 28.08.2021 on the ground of merit list. It is submitted that, as per clause 4 of the SOP No. 25 of 2021 list of candidates from all district and zone was published which was considered by the departmental promotion committee. The departmental promotion committee published the list of candidates of 03 times to the vacant post after resolving the claim/objections from various candidates. Further, the claim / objections of the candidates were resolved as per the existing rules and provisions of SOP No. 25/2021. It is further submitted that the departmental promotion committee has considered the physical efficiency test of 201 candidates against 67 vacant posts. Accordingly, in two phases the physical efficiency test of 162 and 29 candidates was conducted and 10 candidates who came under the zone of consideration and had passed the examination prior to the year 2017, were exempted from the physical efficiency test as per the direction of the Police Headquarters, therefore, their names were not included in the list. It is further submitted that, one Ram Krishna Sonwani, the last person in the list issued for physical efficiency test has promotion 7 dated 29.05.2003, appointment dated 24.10.2005 and date of birth 12.05.1981, while the petitioners have been promoted on 30.05.2013. A total of 160 candidates who passed the physical efficiency test were included in the written examination. Total 152 candidates have passed in the written examination, the respondent authority published merit list of total 67 candidates according to the vacant post vide order dated 20.10.2021 and the candidates of merit list were sent for PP course which was conducted in the PTS Mainpat, in which total 11 candidates failed and due to pending departmental enquiry against the two candidates they have not been given promotion. Further, as per rules promotion order of remaining 54 candidates issued on 27.12.2021. Pursuant to quashing of the SOP No. 25/2021 the promotion of number of employees has been affected. The authorities could not be carried out promotion process in absence of SOP. 6. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition being WPS No.6022 of 2021 filed by the writ petitioners / respondents herein. Hence, this writ appeal. 7. Learned Government Advocate for the appellants submits that the order passed by learned Single Judge is unsustainable and is also contrary to the evidence available on record and has been passed without considering the entirety of the aspects and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Learned Single 8 Judge has failed to consider that the criteria for consideration of names of candidates for promotion examination, 2021 to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector was seniority-cum-merit and the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Police Karyapalik (Arakshak Se Pradhan Arakshak Aur Pradhan Arakshak Se Sahayak Up Nirikshak) Padonnati Manak Sanchalan Prakirya, 2021 and Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 and Chhattisgarh Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2003. It is submitted that the SOP No. 25/2021 was issued in respect of the promotion process. Rule 5 provides for determination of seniority, in which, it is mentioned that that the seniority of a person promoted to the post of Head Constable where the departmental promotion is made on the basis of selection by the committee, then the seniority of the persons so promoted shall be in the order in which they are recommended (in the order of their names in the merit list) for such promotion by the Committee. He further submits that learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that as per Clause 4 of the SOP No. 25 of 2021 list of candidates from all district and zone was published which was considered by the departmental promotion committee. The departmental promotion committee published the list of candidates of 03 times to the vacant post after resolving the claim/objections from various candidates. Learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the list of candidates was prepared after resolving the claims/objection of the candidates. He also 9 submits that learned Single Judge ought to have seen that the respondents have not prayed any relief for quashment of SOP No. 25 of 2021 dated 06.08.2021 and therefore, without specific prayer learned Single Judge has made an error in quashing the said SOP. He contended that learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the appellants have preferred the said SOP in the name of the Governor of State of Chhattisgarh under the provision of Section 51(2) of the Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007, which is in consonance with the Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is respectfully submitted that, as per the provision of Section 52(1) of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulation Act, 2007 if any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the State Government may, by an order to be published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions, not inconsistent with this Act, as it deems necessary or expedient for removing the difficulty. Pursuant to the above provision, the above provision the above said SOP No. 25 of 2021 dated 06.08.2021 has been framed in the name of the Governor of Chhattisgarh. Learned Single Judge ought to have seen that any amendment is not required to notify in the official gazette and only thereafter, it will come into force. He further contended that learned Single Judge ought to have considered that 60% of Head Constable posts were to be promoted to the post of ASI on the eligibility cum seniority, which comes under A category, whereas, remaining 40% promotional post to be filled up on the basis of seniority cum eligibility which 10 comes under the B category. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 8. We have heard learned Government Advocate for the appellants and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition by observing that the SOP dated 06/08/2021 was issued by the respondent No.1 in the name of Hon'ble Governor. Section 51 (2) says that any amendment in Regulation must be notified in the official gazette and thereafter it will come into force. Learned Single Judge further observed that the service rules with regard to the Police Departments were enacted in accordance with the Article 309 of the Constitution of India whereas the State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Home exercising executive power amended the recruitment rules, which is not permissible. He further observed that the State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Home without notifying the amendment in the official gazette, inserted certain amendment in the recruitment rules, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007. Learned Single Judge quashed the SOP issued by the respondent No.1 dated 06/08/2021 and granted liberty to the State of Chhattisgarh, 11 Department of Home to frame new SOP, if so advised strictly in accordance with Section 51(2) of the Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007 and Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Government Advocate for the appellants, perusing the documents appended with writ petition as also in writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / respondents herein, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu