Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1 Heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Counsel (through Video Conferencing) assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 & 2, Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, Mr. Amit Bhardwaj, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 31 days in preferring the appeal.

2 For the grounds assigned in the application (I.A. No.01), the same is allowed. Delay of 31 days in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned.

3 By way of the present writ appeal, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.254/2019 and for remanding the matter to the learned Single Bench for adjudication afresh on merits in accordance with law.

4 The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.254/2019 (Hemendra Singh Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge has been dismissed.

5 Brief facts of the case before the learned Single Judge, in nutshell, are that the appellant/writ petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Peon in the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh and was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-III sometime in the year 2012. Respondent No.5 was initially appointed as Assistant Grade-III in the Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur and thereafter his services were transferred to the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh vide order dated 03.12.1999. The services of respondent No.5 were regularized vide order dated 17.12.2002 with effect from 01.07.2001. Thereafter, respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II vide order dated 05.03.2015, which came to be challenged by the appellant/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge.

6 It was the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that earlier she had preferred WPS No.4555 of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.07.2018 directing respondent No.3 to decide her pending representation. Pursuant thereto, the representation submitted by the appellant/writ petitioner was rejected vide order dated 13.08.2018, which was also assailed in the writ petition.

7 The appellant/writ petitioner contended before the learned Single Judge that while considering the case of respondent No.5 for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-II, no seniority list was ever published by respondent No.3. It was further pleaded that despite submitting an application under the Right to Information Act seeking copy of the seniority list, no such document was supplied by the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh. It was also contended that the name of respondent No.5 continued to reflect in the seniority list of Assistant Grade-III maintained by the Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur and, therefore, the promotion granted to respondent No.5 to the post of Assistant Grade-II was illegal and contrary to the applicable rules governing seniority and promotion.

8 Feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the appellant/writ petitioner preferred WPS No.254/2019, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.01.2026.

9 After dismissal of the writ petition vide order dated 22.01.2026, the appellant/writ petitioner requested her erstwhile counsel to file a review petition against the said order. However, the said counsel was of the opinion that the matter was not fit for review and, accordingly, declined to prefer the same. The said counsel also voluntarily issued a No Objectio