1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

“10.i. To call for the entire records available in the office of the Respondents pertaining to the case of petitioners.

ii. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned promotion order dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure P/1).

iii. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to be directed the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Executive Officer w.e.f. his immediate junior was promoted with all benefits of promotional post.

iv. Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

2. Mr. Payasi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that initially the petitioners were appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-III and subsequently, they were promoted to the post of AG-II and thereafter to the post of Field Officer. He would further submit that the private respondents No. 4 to 10 were appointed to the post of Field Officer pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.03.2012. He would further submit that in the gradation list published on 01.04.2016, the petitioners were placed below the private respondents and thereafter, the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 11.05.2022. The private respondents were considered for promotion to the post of Executive Officer vide order dated 25.04.2022 pursuant to gradation list published on 01.04.2016. He would submit that the services of the petitioners and private respondents are governed by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Antyavasai Sahakari Vitta Evum Vikas Nigam Maryadit Karmachari Sewa Niyam (for short, the Service Rule). He would refer to Rule 13(5) of the Service Rule, which states that if name of a senior employee is not considered for promotion, the Corporation has to record the reasons in writing and the date of confirmation in cadre shall be decisive to reckon seniority. If two employees are confirmed on the same date, seniority will be decided by: their seniority in the previous lower category/post. If that is also the same, then seniority will depend on: total length of service. If length of service is also equal, then: the older employee will be senior. If age is also the same, then: the appointing authority will decide seniority based on merit and efficiency.

He would contend that as the petitioners were appointed and confirmed prior to the private respondents, therefore, their names ought to have been placed above the private respondents in the gradation list. He would further contend that the DPC failed to consider Rule 13(5) of the Rules while recommending the names of respondents No. 4 to 10 for promotion to the next higher post. He would further contend that the promotion order issued in favour of respondents No. 4 to 10 may be quashed and respondent No. 1 may be directed to consider the names of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Executive Officer.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 would oppose and submit that the seniority list was published on 01.04.2021, but no objection was raised by the petitioners and the Departmental Promotion Committee considered the names of the deserving candidates for promotion to the post of Executive Officer strictly in accordance with the seniority list. She would submit that instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. Ms. Das, learned counsel appearing for private respondents No. 4 to 10 would submit that they were promoted vide order dated 25.04.2022 and they are still working on the promoted post and, after a lapse of 4 years, it would not be appropriate to unsettle their settled position.

5. Mr. Saini, learned State counsel would submit that there is a dispute between the petitioners and respondent No. 1.

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents.

7. It is not in dispute