Promotion based on merit must be prioritized over seniority, requiring a comparative assessment of candidates' qualifications and service records.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2, Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate for respondent No.3 as well as Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate for respondent No.4.

2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 09.03.2023 (Annexure P-1), whereby respondent No.4 has allegedly been illegally promoted to the post of Deputy Inspector General (DIG), Jail, despite being less meritorious than the petitioner and in complete violation of the “Merit-cum-Seniority” criteria prescribed under Rule 7(9) of the Chhattisgarh Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003; the petitioner has further assailed the communication dated 26.04.2023 (Annexure P-2), by which his representation dated 22.03.2023 was erroneously rejected by the Under Secretary, Department of Jail; and has also questioned the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short, ‘DPC’) held on 08.02.2023 on the ground that the same were conducted in contravention of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003, particularly Clauses 7 and 9 thereof. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

“10.1 Call for the entire records from the possession of respondents, for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

10.2 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 09/03/2023 (Annexure P-1) and letter dated 26/04/2023 (Annexure P-2) issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari and direct the respondent authorities to promote the petitioner with all due seniority and other consequential benefits in place of respondent No.4.

10.3 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to reconsider the case of petitioner for promotion on the post of DIG Jail from the date of promotion of respondent No.4 and grant all consequential benefits.

10.4 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass such other orders as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner against the respondents. Cost of this litigation may also be awarded.

10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and quash the DPC conducted on 08.02.2023 (Annexure P/4).”

3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that, the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 2009 as Superintendent, District Jail, and has since been discharging his duties with utmost sincerity; he was promoted in 2015 to the post of Superintendent, Central Jail, and is presently posted at Central Jail, Jagdalpur, District Bastar. Upon the superannuation of Dr. K.K. Gupta, the post of Deputy Inspector General (‘DIG’) Jail fell vacant, which is to be filled by promotion under the Chhattisgarh Jail (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2008 (for short, ‘Rules of 2008’) and the Chhattisgarh Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2003 (for short, ‘Rules of 2003’). The DPC in its meeting dated 08.02.2023, applied the “Merit-cum-Seniority” criteria, requiring “Very Good” ACR grading for the preceding five years, and considered the petitioner along with respondent No.4 and one Yogesh Singh Kshatriya; however, only respondent No.4 was recommended. On obtaining the DPC minutes and the ACR tabulation chart under the RTI Act, the petitioner discovered that he possessed superior ACR gradings (^^d**$ signifying “Outstanding” and ^^d** signifying “Very Good”) as compared to respondent No.4, thereby making him more meritorious. The petitioner has also placed on record