Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, J.
Salik Ram Chandrakar, S/o. Dhuru Ram Chandrakar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Secretary, Department of Water Resource, Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 2012 of 2023
Decided On : 02-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background regarding the petitioner's promotion eligibility. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on the wrongful denial of promotion. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. government's defense against the petitioner's claims. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's observations on procedural flaws in promotions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. judicial clarifications on promotion eligibility. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. precedents affirming the right to consider for promotion. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. court's critique of the government's order rejecting promotion. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 8. court's decisions on the petitioner's promotion and rights. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 9. final order and directions to extend notional benefits. (Para 21 , 22) |
Order :
AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, J.
1. Heard Ms. Swati Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate with Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents.
2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petitioner and give direction respondent no. 2 to promote the petitioner in the post of assistant research officer.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct concern department for consider the objection raised by the petitioner and direct the department to allow salary scale of Assistant research officer from the date of 8-08-2022.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct concern department to give petitioner all benefits of seniority from the date of 07-05-2012.
10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”
3. Brief facts of the case, in nutshell, are as under:-
- The petitioner is presently working as an Embankment Inspector in the Water Resources Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, and is posted at Rudri. Prior to his present posting, the petitioner was serving on the post of Laboratory Assistant Grade-B (Prayogshala Sahayak).
- As per the applicable departmental rules, the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Embankment Inspector is 8 years of qualifying service in the cadre of Laboratory Assistant Grade-A (Prayogshala Taknishiyan) and 12 years of qualifying service in the cadre of Laboratory Assistant Grade-B (Prayogshala Sahayak).
- Vide order dated 11.02.2011, the department issued a seniority list in which the petitioner was placed immediately below Mr. Surendra Tiwari, who was equally senior to the petitioner. In the last paragraph of the said order, the department itself recorded that, “according to the rules, promotion in 25% posts of Embankment Inspector from Prayogshala Sahayak and Prayogshala Taknishiyan cadres is not clear, and therefore instructions/decision regarding the post may be issued.”
- On 07.05.2012, the department issued an order of promotion whereby Mr. Surendra Kumar Tiwari was promoted to the post of Embankment Inspector.
- The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation before the competent authority seeking similar relief; however, vide reply dated 25.10.2014, the department rejected the petitioner’s claim on the ground that no post of Embankment Inspector was available.
- Subsequently, vide order dated 01.02.2019, the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Embankment Inspector, though after an unjustified delay of nearly ten years. The petitioner ought to have been promoted during the period between 2007 to 2012.
- The department thereafter published a scheduled list of Embankment Inspector posts on 07.04.2022, wherein it was again noted that Mrs. Rinu Toppo and Mr. Arun Kumar Tondon had been promoted to the post of Embankment Inspector on 07.05.2012, and further that 25% of the posts in the cadre would be filled in the ratio of 50:50 from Prayogshala Sahayak and Prayogshala Taknishiyan cadres.
- Thereafter, vide order dated 08.09.2022, the department promoted Mrs. Rinu Toppo and Mr. Arun Kumar
The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and denial of timely consideration constitutes a violation of these rights.
Promotions take effect from the date granted, not from the date of vacancy, and retrospective seniority cannot be assigned.
The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, but there is no absolute right to promotion itself, which becomes effective only upon assumption of duties.
Failure to pass mandatory departmental examination renders employee ineligible for gazetted promotion despite seniority, adhoc service, or pre-retirement DPC; no right to regular/notional promotion o....
Promotion for eligible employees based on qualifications must be timely and fair, not delayed arbitrarily, upholding the principles of legitimate expectation and constitutional rights.
An employee has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion, but not a right to retrospective promotion unless clearly justified by rules or exceptional circumstances.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
