State service-related claims, particularly those involving promotion and seniority that may affect the rights of third parties, cannot be entertained after a long and unexplained delay due to the doctrine of laches, which serves the public interest by ensuring certainty in legal rights and obligations.

Order on Board

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set

aside the impugned order dated 27.01.22 (ANNEXURE P/1)

and further be pleased to direct the respondents for granting

promotion to the petitioner from 12.12.2013, in the post of

State Finance Service, with all consequential benefits and

seniority, in the interest of Justice.

10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III in Revenue Department in the year 1989. Subsequently the petitioner completed Subordinate Accounts Service examination in the year 2004. After completion of 05 years of services, he became eligible for promotion to the next higher post. It is pleaded that juniors to the petitioner were promoted in the year 2011 and 2013 and the Departmental Promotion Committee considered names of candidates belonging to reserved category. The petitioner was granted increment and time bound pay scale by the Departmental Promotion Committee after completion of 10 years of services. Vide order dated 03.03.2017, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Class-II post under Chhattisgarh State Finance Services. It is further pleaded that though the petitioner was entitled for promotion in the year 2011 and 2013, but his name was considered in the year 2017. The petitioner came to know that his name was not considered in absence of vacancy for candidates belonging to unreserved category.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner inquired from the department and came to know that 388 posts were lying vancant to the department for unreserved category and deliberately name of the petitioner was not considered for promotion in the year 2011 and 2013. He would contend that the respondent authorities acted discriminatory and arbitrary. He would submit that a direction may be issued to the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner from 12.12.2013 when his juniors were promoted. It is also argued that the petitioner made representation before the respondents which was rejected vide order dated 27.01.2022 and against said order, this petition has been preferred.

4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner has claimed promotion from 12.12.2013 and has filed this petition on 26.07.2022. He would submit that the order of promotion was issued in favour of the candidates belonging to reserved category on 12.12.2013 and that was the reason, the name of the petitioner was not considered. He would contend that the petitioner was extended benefit of time bound pay scale by the Departmental Promotion Committee. He would submit that the petition filed by the petitioner is hit by delay and laches. He would contend that the policy of reservation in promotion in the State of Chhattisgarh was a subject matter of consideration in WP PIL No. 91/2019 and Rule 5 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003 was declared unconstitutional. He would contend that, that was the reason and on said ground, the representation of the petitioner was rejected.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

6. In the year 2013, promotion was granted to the candidates belonging to reserved category. Admittedly, the petitioner is member of unreserved category, therefore, his name was not considered. The petitioner w