1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 141 of 2024
Vipin Kumar Shrivastava, S/o Late Shri Jagannath Prasad, Aged
about 75 years, Retired Superintending Engineer, At O/o Chief
Engineer, Mahanadi Godawari Basin, Raipur, District Raipur (CG)
Presently R/o E-6, 105, Arera Colony, Bhopal, District Bhopal (MP)
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Water
Resources, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur (CG)
now Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur, District
Raipur (CG)
---- Respondent
Cause-title taken from Case Information System
For Appellant : Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate
For Respondent /State : Mr. Y.S.Thakur, Additional Advocate General
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
28/03/2024
1. Heard Mr. K.Rohan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard
Mr.Y.S.Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated
01.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S)
No. 6194/2011 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed
the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein.
2
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are that the writ
petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer in Water
Resources Department vide order dated 6.1.1975 and promoted to
the post of Assistant Engineer on 23.1.1979 and thereafter,
promoted to the post of Executive Engineer vide order dated
17.4.1998. On 9.9.2008 the writ petitioner was lastly promoted to
the post of Superintending Engineer and he retired from the said
post w.e.f. 30.04.2010. In the gradation list as on 1.4.2009
published by respondent No.1 of the Superintending Engineers,
name of the writ petitioner appeared at Sl.No.14 Annexure P/2 of
writ petition. However, vide order dated 31.7.2009 one Mr. BL Roy,
Superintending Engineer, who was junior to the writ petitioner as his
name appears in the gradation list at Sl.No.15, was promoted to the
post of Chief Engineer, ignoring the seniority of the writ petitioner in
a discriminatory manner. Hence the petitioner filed a writ petition i.e.
WPS No.113/2010 in which after issuance of notices, the
respondent authorities assured the writ petitioner for consideration
of his name for promotion after withdrawal of the writ petition.
Therefore, the petitioner withdrew the said petition but even then he
was not granted promotion. Thereafter, he has filed the writ petition.
4. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the
writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. Hence, this
writ appeal.
5. Mr.K. Rohan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
learned Single Judge did not appreciate the fact that the appellant /
writ petitioner in the writ petition took the specific and categorical
3
stand that the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Chief
Engineer from the post of Superintending Engineer, as per the
Chhattisgarh Irrigation Engineering and Geological Service
(Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1968 is five years experience on the
post of Superintending Engineer. Learned Single Judge did not
appreciate the fact that the appellant / writ petitioner also took a
specific plea that two other officers who were holding the
substantive post of Superintending Engineer and who were about to
superannuate from service were given the charge of the
promotional post i.e. Chief Engineer, ignoring the appellant herein.
The learned Single Judge did not appreciate the fact that the
Chhattisgarh Public Service Promotion Rules, 2003 would be
applicable in consideration of the candidates falling in the zone of
consideration for promotion from the post of Superintending
Engineer to the post of Chief Engineer. He further submits that
learned Single Judge did not appreciate the fact that as per the
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) proceedings, five posts
were earmarked for Unreserved Category, one post for Schedule
Tribe and one post for Schedule Caste. Thus, there were total 07
posts of Chief Engineer as per the Reservation Roster. The learned
Single Judge did not appreciate the fact that the Departmental
Promotion Committee specified that the criteria for promotion to the
post of Chief Engineer would be merit-cum-seniority and usually the
ACR’s of last two years out of the five years should be “very good”.
Thus, from the recommendations of the DPC, it is evident that the
appellant and all other officers (except one) were fulfilling and
4
having the requisite essential criteria and meeting the benchmark as
required for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer. He also
submits that the learned Single Judge did not appreciate the fact
that the date of superannuation for the appellant herein was
30.04.2010 and that is the only reason accorded by the DPC for not
considering the case of the appellant herein for promotion to the
post of Chief Engineer is that the requisite number of officers to be
promoted to the post of Chief Engineer is available, therefore, the
appellant’s name/candidature is not being considered for being
promoted to the post of Chief Engineer. The learned Single Judge
did not appreciate the overall tenure of the recommendations made
by the DPC wherein the name of the appellant herein was not
considered owning to the misconception that the appellant herein
would superannuate on 31.05.2009 whereas the actual date of
superannuation of the appellant herein would be 30.04.2010.
Furthermore, from the overall material brought on record, it is
evident that Shri B.L. Rai did not possess the requisite eligibility
criteria prescribed for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer and
thus, the recommendation made in his favour by the Departmental
Promotion Committee was erroneous and thus liable to be quashed
and set aside. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and
the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves
to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, Mr.Y.S.Thakur, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the respondent/State supports the impugned
order and submits that the learned Single Judge considering the
5
material available on record and the documents appended with writ
petition has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein
which warrants no interference.
7. We have perused the impugned order and other documents
appended with writ appeal.
8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned
Single Judge has held that the petitioner’s name was not
considered due to non-availability of promotional post. It is not the
case of the petitioner that any officer junior to him of the unreserved
category was promoted to the post of Chief Engineer. Learned
Single Judge has further held that it is evident from minutes of the
meeting of DPC that there were total seven posts of Chief Engineer
(Civil) – five posts for unreserved category, one post for scheduled
caste category and one for scheduled tribe category. From S.No.15
of the minutes of DPC, it is apparent that name of Shri SP Sen
Gupta, Shri GPS Baghel, Shri ML Bani and Shri SB Soni, who were
over and above in seniority to the petitioner, were also not
considered due to non-availability of promotional post. Moreover,
the petitioner retired on 30.04.2010 whereas he filed writ petition on
14.10.2011 stating that after retirement, he shifted to Bhopal (MP)
with his family and on account of illness, he could not come to
Bilaspur for filing petition and before retirement, no representation
was filed by him for redressal of his grievance.
9. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties, perusing the pleadings made in this writ appeal, further
considering the material available in writ petition and documents
6
attached with writ petition and also considering the findings
recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered
opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any
illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in dismissing the writ
petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein warranting
interference by this Court.
10.Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and
is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra