IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules, and any amendment to statutory rules must be issued by the competent authority in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

1. Challenge in this writ appeal is the order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in WPS No.1799 of 2011 dated 31-07-2023 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent No.5/writ petitioner by which the writ petition filed by respondent No.5/writ petitioner is allowed and the order dated 18-09-2012 (Annexure P/19) passed by the State Government; proceedings of DPC dated 20-12-2010 (Annexure P/16); order of promotion of respondent No.5/writ appellant dated 30-12-2010 (Annexure P/17) and letter dated 13-08-2010 (Annexure-P/1) have been quashed and respondent No.3 and 4 of the writ petition are directed to convene the review Department Promotion Committee as per rules of Chhattisgarh Ke Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Marmachari Seva (Niyojan, Nibandhan Tatha Unki Karya Sthiti) Niyam, 1982 (in short “the Niyam, 1982') prevailing on the date of DPC, i.e., 20-12-2010. By the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge it has also been ordered that if in the review DPC the petitioner is found fit for promotion then he shall be granted 'notional promotion' from the date when respondent No.5 was granted promotion, fixing his seniority and pay accordingly. However, it has also been ordered that the petitioner will not be entitled for any monetary benefit.

2. For convenience, the parties in the present appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their status in the writ petition. The facts pleaded in the writ petition by the present respondent No.5/writ petitioner in his petition in nutshell is that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk-cum- Cashier in the District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Raipur on 28- 12-1982. He was granted promotional benefit from time to time under the Niyam, 1982 and ultimately vide order dated 16-10-2001 he was promoted on the post of Industrial Development Officer (Class 1). It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was having unblemished service record and no any adverse remark or departmental enquiry etc. against him. He participated in Debt Recovery Training and obtained appreciation certificates and he has been also awarded for excellent performance as Industrial Development Officer by the Management of Bank. He obtained B.Com. and M.A. degree after having due permission from management of the Bank and the same was recorded in his service book also.

3. The service conditions of the employees of the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Raipur is governed by the Niyam, 1982 which has been made under exercise of the powers conferred under Section 55 of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act, 1960'). In exercise of powers conferred under Section 55(1) of the Act, 1960 the respondent No.2 has amended the Niyam, 1982 and substituted the Niyam 5(3)(a, b and c), the amended Niyam would be made applicable with effect from the date of order, i.e., 04-07-2005. It is also the case of the petitioner that for year 2005-2006, a gradation list of Class 1 officers working in the Bank was published as on 31-08-2005 and in the said gradation list the name of respondent No.5 was not mentioned, but in the year 2007-2008 the name of respondent No.5 was added and the petitioners name has been left and therefore, the petitioner has submitted his representation against the gradation list published in the year 2007- 2008 (as on position on 31-03-2008). Considering the representation made by the petitioner vide order dated 06-11-2008 the name of another officer was added at Serial No.1, but the name of respondent No.5 was not deleted, then the petitioner again submitted another representation that he has wrongly been placed in the said gradation list and objected the placement of respondent No.5 in the said gradation list. Thereafter, the name of the petitioner was placed below the post of Additional Manager, but the name of respondent No.5 in the said gradation list has not been removed. The petitioner's objection was t