C.A.V. Order

Per Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

1. Petitioner by way of this writ petition has challenged the order of promotion of Respondent No. 4 vide impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 24.02.2025 on the ground that the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short “DPC”) has not followed the provisions for promotion as provided under Chhattisgarh Labour (Gazette) Service Rules, 2013 (for short “Service Rules, 2013”) and the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003 (for short “CCS (Promotion) Rules, 2003.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Director vide order dated 30.06.2001, he thereafter was promoted on the post of Deputy Director, Industrial Health and Safety vide order dated 23.01.2014 w.e.f. 13.06.2013 and since then he is discharging his duties with dedication, honesty and up to the satisfaction of higher authorities. Service of petitioner is governed with the Service Rules, 2013 and for purpose of promotion CCS (Promotion) Rules, 2003 has also been made applicable. Respondents-authorities have constituted DPC to consider the eligible candidates for promotion on the post of Director. Based on the recommendation made by DPC, Respondent No. 4 has been promoted to the post of Director, his promotion is made without following due procedure as provided under the Service Rules, 2013 and the CCS (Promotion) Rules, 2003. Referring to Rule 14(5) to submit that the requisite service in the feeder cadre for promotion of the Deputy Director to the post of Director is prescribed as 10 years and in support of his contention, he referred to Schedule 4 formulated under Rule 14 & 15 of the Service Rules of 2013. He also contended that according to his instruction, petitioner secured 18 marks while assessment of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and the other candidates who had under the zone of consideration for promotion by the DPC have been awarded less marks than that of petitioner. He would submit that even if the requirement in the service rules for promotion ie., the candidate to be eligible for promotion has secured ‘very good’ grading in all the five years to obtain minimum 15 marks but for the purpose of promotion under merit-cum-seniority basis inter se merit is also to be considered by the DPC and the said procedure adopted is also to be mentioned in the proceedings. In the proceedings of DPC, there is no such mention but for that all the persons have secured ‘very good’ grading, the senior most person under the zone of consideration for promotion has been recommended for promotion and accordingly Annexure P-1 order of promotion has been issued by the State Government. The procedure adopted by the DPC is in contravention of provisions of Service Rules of 2013 and also CCS (Promotion) Rules, 2003. He contended that for assessing comparative merit, the DPC is under obligation to evaluate qualitative differences, overall performance indicators, consistency of service, noteworthy achievements etc. to assess merit of the officer/ employee in the zone of consideration of promotion, which was not done by the DPC and therefore the procedure adopted for promotion by the DPC, is not sustainable and it is to be quashed and consequently the order of promotion is also required to be quashed. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Amit Shandilya vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in WPS No. 3033 of 2023 order dated 15.01.2026 and the decision passed by Division Bench of this Court passed in WA No. 265 of 2026 (between S.S. Tigga vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) wherein challenge made to the decision in WPS No. 3033 of 2023 was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the proceedings of promotion has been conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions as provided under the Service Rules of 2013 and also CCS (Promotion) Rules, 2003. He contended that, DPC convened i