Only individuals directly aggrieved by a promotion can maintain a writ petition challenging its legality; an association lacks standing without demonstrable infringement of its members' rights.

ORDER :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. The present writ petition is being filed seeking following reliefs:-

“i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents.

ii. To kindly quash the impugned communication dated 21/08/2023 issued by the respondent no. 02.

iii To kindly direct the respondents to cancel the promotion of the private respondent on the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 2005 and the post of Superintendent Engineer w.e.f. 2010 as the same is unconstitutional, illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law.

iv. To kindly direct the respondents to not proceed with the further promotion of the private respondent to the post of Chief Engineer w.e.f. 2020.

v. To kindly direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner association in support of the representations of the Chief Engineers and Superintendent Engineers.

vi. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is a registered association working for the welfare and service interests of engineers employed in various departments of the State of Chhattisgarh, and is therefore competent to invoke the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India on behalf of its members, who, according to the petitioner, have been bypassed and prejudiced by the respondent authorities by extending undue, arbitrary and illegal benefits to the private respondent. The private respondent, Shri Nagesh Kumar Jayant, was initially appointed in the year 1992 as an Assistant Engineer under the Scheduled Caste category in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and, upon reorganisation of the State, came to be allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh along with the concerned department and cadre; however, it is alleged that since the inception of his service career he has been embroiled in serious disputes with the department and has faced multiple departmental enquiries, some of which culminated in final orders, even after his allocation to Chhattisgarh. In the year 2003, ad-hoc promotions were granted owing to non-finalisation of promotion rules, and thereafter a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting dated 20.12.2005 was convened for confirmation/regularisation of ad-hoc promotions from Assistant Engineer to Executive Engineer, wherein, as per the roster, 12 posts were available for the unreserved category, 4 for Scheduled Tribe and 2 for Scheduled Caste; notwithstanding this, the private respondent’s name appeared at the third position in the Scheduled Caste select list, despite only two vacancies being available and despite the pendency of departmental enquiries against him, as reflected in the departmental records. The alleged irregularity continued, and in the subsequent DPC meeting dated 27.12.2010 for promotion from Executive Engineer to Superintending Engineer, the sealed cover procedure was adopted in respect of the private respondent due to pending enquiries. Subsequently, by order dated 22.02.2021, the sealed cover was opened and the private respondent was found eligible for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, though, according to the petitioner, he had not been lawfully promoted to the feeder cadre of Executive Engineer following due process, and the private respondent thereafter sought review of the DPC for promotion to the post of Chi