Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Bio
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:39326 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5576 of 2023 1 - Mohan Lal Komre S/o - Shri M.S. Komre Aged About 52 Years Working As Executive Engineer In Chhattisgarh State Agricultural Marketing (Mandi) Board R/o P-6, Green Paradise, Vishal Nagar, Telibandha, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Bio Technology Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Agrictultural Marketing (Mandi) Board Through Its Managing Director, Beej Bhawan, G.E. Road, Telibandha, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ashok Kumar Dodwani Working As Superintendant Engineer At Chhattisgarh State Agricultural Marketing (Mandi) Board, Beej Bhawan, G.E. Road, Telibandha, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
26.06.2023 cannot therefore be faulted. It is well settled that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not extend to re-evaluating the assessment of ACRs or the findings of the DPC, unless there is mala fide, bias, or violation of statutory rules, which is absent in the present case. Hence, the petition, being devoid of merit and substance, deserves dismissal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 7 material available on record. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the post of Superintendent Engineer is lying vacant and the re-appointment of a retired officer on the said post has been resorted to only as a stop-gap arrangement. Since the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 23.09.2021 has already lapsed in terms of Rule 16 of the 1998 Regulations, the continuance of such arrangement cannot be a substitute for filling up the post through a regular process of promotion. 7. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to convene a fresh meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, and to consider the candidature of all eligible officers, including the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, rules, and applicable service regulations.
Arguments
: Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 2 : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 06/08/2025 Order on Board 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the recommendation dated 23.9.2021 (Annexure-P/3) issued by the Departmental Promotion Committee and Promotion order dated 26.6.2023 (Annexure-P/12) issued in favour of Respondent No. 3 by the Respondent No. 2, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the order dated 24.4.2023 (Annexure-P/10) issued by the Respondent No. 2, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to convene a fresh Departmental Promotion Committee for considering promotion to the post of Superintendant Engineer, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner challenges the 3 recommendation dated 23.09.2021 made by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), whereby the name of Respondent No. 3 was recommended for promotion to the post of Superintendent Engineer, the order dated 24.04.2023 passed by Respondent No. 2 rejecting the petitioner’s representation against the said recommendation and the promotion order dated 26.06.2023 issued by Respondent No. 2 in favour of Respondent No. 3 pursuant to the DPC recommendation. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer through direct recruitment on 24.12.1996 in the Respondent No. 2 department and was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 13.07.2005. The post of Superintendent Engineer was created only in 2005, and in 2010 the petitioner, having already completed the minimum five years’ qualifying service, was entrusted with the additional charge of Superintendent Engineer at Headquarters, where he has been discharging his duties diligently ever since. However, no DPC was convened for the said promotion until 2021. Under Regulation 16 of the State Mandi Board Service Regulations, 1998, framed under the Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhniyam, 1972, any recommendation made by the DPC is valid only for one year, after which it loses sanctity. Despite this, Respondent authorities acted on the 2021 recommendation even after its validity had 4 expired. Further, the DPC proceedings are flawed as they relied upon the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of Respondent No. 3 for the years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20, all of which were prepared on a single day, 15.09.2020, by Shri S.K. Agrawal, who had already retired on 31.08.2019, and therefore was not competent to record such ACRs. Government circulars clearly state that a reporting/assessment authority may record its assessment only within one month of retirement, not thereafter, making the ACRs relied upon by the DPC legally unsustainable. Pursuant to this Hon’ble Court’s order dated 06.02.2023, Respondent No. 2 considered and rejected the petitioner’s representation by order dated 24.04.2023. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed WPS No. 2921/2023 challenging the DPC recommendation and rejection order, wherein notices were issued to the Respondents. However, instead of filing their reply, the Respondent authorities, with an intent to frustrate the petitioner’s claim, hurriedly issued the promotion order dated 26.06.2023 in favour of Respondent No. 3 despite knowing that the DPC recommendation had already lapsed. Consequently, the petitioner was constrained to withdraw the earlier writ petition with liberty to file a fresh, duly constituted petition, as permitted by order dated 04.07.2023. In these circumstances, the recommendation dated 23.09.2021, the rejection order dated 5 24.04.2023, and the promotion order dated 26.06.2023 are arbitrary, illegal, devoid of authority, and liable to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the post of Superintendent Engineer is presently lying vacant and the petitioner, being fully eligible and qualified in all respects, is fit and entitled to be considered for promotion to the said post. However, instead of convening a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for filling up the vacancy in accordance with law, the respondents have chosen to re-appoint the person who had already retired from the post of Superintendent Engineer, extending his service for a further period of one year, on the pretext that such re-appointment would continue until the post is filled up through the next DPC. It is further submitted that such action of the authorities is arbitrary, contrary to the settled principles of service jurisprudence, and is causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the respondent authorities be directed to convene the DPC at the earliest and to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendent Engineer in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the present petition is nothing but an attempt by the petitioner to seek judicial review of the recommendation made by 6 the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 23.09.2021, whereby respondent No. 3 was found more meritorious and recommended for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. The DPC, while assessing the comparative merit of the candidates on the basis of ACR gradings of the last five years as per the Chhattisgarh Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2003, found respondent No. 3 to be more suitable. Although a departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner at the relevant time, his case was also duly considered, but he secured second place in the merit list. Since promotion was on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, respondent No. 3 was rightly recommended. He further submits that the recommendation of the DPC was valid only for one year in terms of Rule 16 of the 1998 Regulations and stood lapsed after 22.09.2022. The consequential promotion order dated
Decision
8. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Raghu Jat Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge