2026:CGHC:10581 Digitally NAFR signed by YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

2026.02.28

18:13:18 +0530 Order Reserved on : 12.02.2026 Order Delivered on : 28.02.2026 WPS No. 7136 of 2023 Dilip Rangare S/o Late Gyanovaji Rangare, Aged About 59 Years Presently Working As Office Superintendent, Office Of Tribal Director, Research and Training Institute, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - Commissioner, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Block -4D, Ground Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3 - Director, Tribal Research And Training Institute, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4 - Gyaneshwar Bansod, Officer Superintendent, Office Of The Commissioner, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development Department Block -4-D, Ground Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

CAV Order

1. Heard Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Aniket Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 23.08.2023 whereby respondent No.2, i.e. Commissioner, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Raipur has granted seniority to respondent No.4 over the petitioner in the gradation list effective from 01.04.2012 whereas Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) vide its order dated 29.12.1996 granted seniority to the petitioner over respondent No.4. The petitioner has sought for following reliefs:-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased set-aside the order dated 23.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) and further direct the respondent No.2 to maintain the seniority list as directed by the Departmental Promotion Committee vide order dated 29.06.2012.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.4 were appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 11.03.1987, wherein the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.3 and respondent No.4 at Sl. No.5. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on 22.11.1996, whereas respondent No.4 was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II on 22.10.1997. In the gradation list published on 23.07.2003, the petitioner was shown as senior. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-I on 06.10.2003. Respondent No.4 was promoted to the post of Junior Account Officer vide order dated 13.06.2007; however, the petitioner was not initially considered. On representation made by the petitioner, a Review Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted and the petitioner was also granted promotion to the post of Junior Account Officer with effect from 13.06.2007. In the gradation list issued as on 01.04.2012 and published on 11.01.2013, the petitioner was shown senior to respondent No.4 at Sl. No.3, while respondent No.4 was placed at Sl. No.4. However, after a lapse of about ten years, respondent No.2, by the impugned order dated 23.08.2023, interfered with the earlier decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee and, by allegedly misinterpreting the relevant provisions, granted seniority to respondent No.4 over the petitioner, which has given rise to the present petition.

4. Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order dated 23.08.2023 is per se illegal, arbitrary and unsustainabl