DPC has the authority to set a minimum benchmark for promotion criteria, balancing seniority and merit, as long as it does not conflict with statutory provisions.

ORDER :

Parth Prateem Sahu, J

1. This writ petition is listed before this Division Bench on a reference being made by learned Single Judge observing thus:-

“ The germane issue for consideration before this Court is whether the view taken by this Court in Harikrishna Patel (supra) that for consideration of promotion on the basis of “seniority-cum-fitness”, no minimum Benchmark could be prescribed by the DPC, is contrary to the provisions contained under Rule 4(1) and Rule 6(5) of the Promotion Rules, 2003 or whether the other view taken by this Court in Prahalad Singh Gunwan (supra) that for promotion on the basis of “seniority-cum-fitness”, the DPC was empowered to prescribe a minimum Benchmark on the basis of ACR grading, is correct or not?”

2. For answering the reference, we find it appropriate to discuss the facts of case, subject matter of writ petition. Petitioner, who is holding post of Senior Horticulture Development Officer, became eligible for his consideration for promotion on the post of Assistant Director (Horticulture). For consideration of eligible candidates for promotion on the post of Assistant Director (Horticulture), the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was constituted and its meeting was held on 24.6.2020 considering seniority of the employees holding post of Senior Horticulture Development Officer as on 1.4.2019. As per claim of petitioner, his name finds place at Sr. No.19 in the gradation list, however, respondent No.3, who is junior to petitioner and whose name is at Sr. No.20 in gradation list, had been promoted, superseding the petitioner. Aggrieved with which, petitioner has filed this writ petition precisely on the ground that as there is no adverse remark in ACRs / departmental inquiry is not pending against him, therefore, petitioner could not have been superseded by respondent No.3 being junior to him.

3. Respondent No.1 and 2-State submitted reply to writ petition stating that criteria for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Horticulture) from Senior Horticulture Development Officer was seniority-cum-merit on the basis of evaluation of annual confidential reports of preceding five years. It is pleaded that DPC has formulated minimum benchmark that “upon valuation of five years annual confidential reports, minimum of which must be “good” (minimum 10 marks) and in none of the years grading of employee shall be ‘D’. Further, there shall be no adverse remarks. As the petitioner was graded with ‘C’ grading, he was not found fit for promotion despite being senior to respondent No.3. To support the contention, reliance is placed on the order dated 24.10.2019 passed by Single Bench in WPS No.5350/2009, parties being Prahlad Singh vs. Gunwan v. State of CG & ors

4. During course of arguments before learned Single Judge, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance upon order dated 31.7.2025 passed in WPS No.2528/2020 ( Harikrishna Patel and others vs. State of CG and others ), and submitted that where criteria for promotion is on the basis of ‘seniority-cum-fitness’, no minimum benchmark can be prescribed by the DPC, it has to be solely on the basis of seniority, provided there is no adverse remark against the employee concerned.

5. Learned Single Judge taking note of two decisions of this Court passed by learned Single Judge i.e. Prahlad Singh Gunwan (sup