IN THE HIGH coURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (cxi) DIN W.P. S No. 2008 PETITIONERS: (”1. Sujan Singh Kanwar Aged About 59 yrs, s/o Late Shri DaISai Kanwar Presently Working as Circle Organizer, Block Education Gfflce Katghora, D istrict orba Atul Pandey, Aged About 47 yrs, S/o Late Shri Vibhuti Bhushan Pandey, Presently working as Circle Organizer, Office of Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare department, District Jashpur (C.G,) B.L. Saral Aged Abt 49 years S/o Shri Sonsai Saral, Presently working as Circle Organizer, Block Education Office, D Pathalgaon, istrict Jashpur (C.G.) G. R. Chauhan Aged Abt 57 years, S/o Shri Mahba Ram Presently working as Circle Organizer Block Education office, Jashpur District Jashpur (C.Gi) S. Kujur, Aged About 48 yrs, S/o Late Shri Bramil KUJur, Block yislhd‘ Jqshpm” Education Office, Kesawel (C G )ag S.K. Jangde,.'Aged about 50 years Shri M.C. Presently working s/o Jangde Circle aS l\) Organizer Block Education office, Kanker (C.G.) B.S. Raj Aged About 45 years s/o Shri Samar Singh Raj Presentl working as Circle Organizer,Assistant Commissioner Office Tribal Welfare department Janjgir Dist; Janjgir-Champa(c.G.) F. R. Saiam Aged About 47 yrs s/o Late Shri S.R. Saiam Presently working as Circle Organizer Block Education office Charama Dist. Kama, 1% R. D. Sahu Aged About 47 yrs S/o Shri R. C. Sahu Presently working as Circle Organizer Block Education office Pratappur Dist, Sarguja C.G. /10. Manoj Kumar Shrivastav Aged About 47 yrs. S/o Late Shrl G. P. Shrivastav Presently working as Circle Organizer Block Education office Pall Dist. Korba C.G. R. K. om Aged About 44 yrs S/o Late Shri Maya Ram Otti Presently working as Circle Organizer Block Education office Jagdalpur C.G. g1. B. K.‘ Dubey Aged About 47 yrs S/o Shri C. M. Dubey Presently working as Circle Organizer Block Education office, Farasgaon Dist. Bastar C.G. ’ /, A J", ,v .. ,M )l\ y é Siv {al Nag Aged-About 47 yrs. S/o Late Shri B.R. Nag Presently working as Circle Organizer Block Education office Bagbahra Dist; Mahasamund (C.G.) /21. R. K. Baghele Aged About 5O yrs. ‘ S/o S‘hri Rajaram Baghele Presently working as Circle Organizer Block Education office Ambagarh Chowki Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Dist. ’22. L. L. Churendra‘ Aged About 44 yrs S/o Shri Indrajeet Singh Churendra Presently working as Circl Organizer Block Education office Gariaband Dist. Raipur (C.G,) A. K. Agnihotri Aged About 45 yrs. S/o Shri R.P. Agnihotri working as Assistant /23. Presently Circle Organizer Commissioner (Tribal Welfare) Korba (C.G.) /24 Mahabeer Chauhan Aged About 54 yrs. 5/0 Shri c.L. chauhan Presently working as Circle 4: Organizer Block Education office Lundra Dist. Sarguja (C.G.) /25. A. K. Thakur Aged About 44 yrs. S/o‘ Shri M.R. Thakur Presently working as Circle Organizer Block Education office Durgukondal Dist. Kanker C.G. .{} h e G. K. Mishra Aged About 4‘5 yrs. S/o Shri R.S. Mishra Presently working as Circle Organizer Block Education office Laiiunga Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) ( 26. D.K. Dubey Aged About Sl yrs S/o Shri C.P. Dubey Presently working as Circle Organizer Block Education office, Chhura, Dist. Raipur C.G [27. (28. S.L. Dhritlahre Aged About 48 rs. S/o Shri Begraha Dhritlah Presently working as Circle Organizer Block Education Link office Pakhanjur Dist. Kanker C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS: /1) State of Chhattisgarh Th rough the Secretary Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary, Raipur (C.G.)‘ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CON$TITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MAND PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As stated above in the cause title. AMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- . y re HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU_R WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 22 14 of2008 PETITIONPR Sujan Singh Kanwar & 27 Others: VERSUS W State of Chhattisgarh & anrwther. Post for pronouncement ofjudgment . and order on ../.0. 1K .day of March, 201 0. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 2214 0f2008 Suj an Singh Kanwar & 27 Others. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & another. RESPONDENTS PETITION ITNDRR ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present : Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy GA. for the State/respondent Not 1. Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. JUDGMENT & ORDER (Delivered on ...lQ."day March, 2010) The petitioners, by this petition, seek a direction to the respondents to constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee (for short ‘DPC’) for considering the case of the petitioners for promotion as Block Education Officer and further, to fill up vacant posts of Area Organizers/Block Education Officers from the Circle Organizers as per the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Tribe & Scheduled Caste Development (Gazetted) Service, Recruitment Rules, 2006 (for short ‘the Rules, 200$. Facts in brief, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Circle Organizers in the Scheduled ' Tribe & Scheduled Caste Welfare Department, in and around the year 1990. Some of the petitioners were selected through mini PSC and some of them were selected by direct recruitment through competitive exams. The service of the petitioners were‘governed by the Madhya Pradesh Adim Jati, Harijan and Pichda Varg Kalyan (Rajpatrit) Seva -Bharti Niyam, 1969, (for short ‘the Rules, 1969’) which were amended Vide notification dated 26.05.1992 (Annexure P/l) providing promotion of Circle Organizers on the post of Area Organizers. In the year 1994 further amendments were made in the Rules, 1969, providing transfer of Principals as Block Education Officers in the ratio of 60:40 percent, thereby depriving Circle Organizers and Area Organizers from promotion as Block Education Officers. 3. Thereafter, the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Tribe &vScheduled Caste Development (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2006 (Annexure P/2) were framed. In the Rules, 2006, the earlier provision for transferof the Principal as Block Education Officer has been deleted e and it is provided that the post of Block Education Officer will be filled up by promotion from Area Organizers and remaining vacant posts will be filled up from the Circle Organizers. The Departmental Promotion Committee held its meeting on 13.02.2008 wherein the cases of Area Organizers were considered for promotion to the post of Chief Executive Officers, Janpad Panch’ayat but the cases of the petitioners werenot considered. Thereafter, the petitioners made a representation (Annexure P/4) but of no avail. During the pendency of the petition, on one hand, the State by order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure P/ll) has transferred Principals/Lecturer of the School Education Department as In—charge, Block Education Officer and Chief Executive Officers in the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, which are the promotional posts for the petitioners and on the other hand the respondent/State is not \ \ conducting the meeting of the DPC, contrary to the provisions of Rule 6(4) of the Chhattisgarh Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2003 (for short ‘the Rules, 2003 ’) which provides that the meeting of the DPC shall be held every year. It shall consider the suitability of the public servants for promotion separately with reference to the vacancies of each year and prepare the select list for the relevant year and thereafter the DPC shall consider the suitability of the public servants for promotion to f111 up the existing and anticipated vacancies of the current year. Thus, non consideration of the case of the petitioners for - promotion is Violative of the Rules, 2006. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cited a decision of this Court dated 27.6.2005 in Writ Petition No. 4258/2004 (Abhishek ‘Bajpaz‘ & Others v. State of Chhattz'sgarh & Others), wherein considering the facts situation that Rulel3(2) of the Chhattisgarh Public Health Engineering (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1980 provides for holding DPC for the purpose of promotion to the next higher post regularly i.e. the Committee shall meet at intervals ordinarilynot exceeding one year, the respondents/State were directed to hold the meeting of DPC, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 5. The petition was admitted for hearing on 17.4.2008. Since then despite grant of several opportunities, the respondents have chosen not to file return and have also not contested the matter seriously. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. The main grievance of the petitiOners is that despite statutory ”"\\ provision as prescribed in Rule 13 of the Rules, 2006, no meeting of \ ‘\ \\\§\\ \ \7 9% the DPC has been held to consider the case of the Circle Organizers/Area Organizers for promotion to the post of Block Education Officers. Rules, 2003 provides for the rules relating to determination of the basis of promotion. Ru1e6(4) of the Rules, 2003 prescribes that the meeting of the DPC shall be held every year to consider the suitability of the public servants for promotions to fill up the unfilled vacancies. In View of that, the State authorities are required to hold the meeting of the DPC every year to consider the cases of Circle Organizers/Area Organizers also for promotion to the post of Block Education Officer 06 as per schedule (under Rule 6) to the Rules, 20. In Council ofScientzj'ic & Industrial Research & another v. KSBhatt & another], the Supreme Court observed as under: 9. ....It is oiien said and indeed, adroitly, an organisation public or private does not “hire a hand” but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organisation not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must, therefore, be given an opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system. The opportunity for advancement is a requirement for progress of any organisation. It is an incentive for personnel development as well. Every management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward. “The organisation that fails to develop a satisfactory procedure for promotion is bound to pay a severe penalty in terms of administrative costs, misallocation of personnel, low morale, and ineffectual performance, among both non- managerial employees and their supervisors. There cannot be any modern management much less any career planning, manpower development, management development etc. which is not related to a system of promotions.” ' “ r4 \ R ’ . ‘vfv “7. This Court, has on more than one occasion, pointed out that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other ministries would have the benefit of promotion; the non-medical ‘A’ Group scientists in the establishment of Director General 0f Health Services would be deprived of such advantage. In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and, therefore, it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend to the representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of officers. It is, therefore, necessary that on the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and Technology with such alterations as may be necessary, appropriate rules should be framed within four months from now providing promotional avenue for the ‘A’ category scientists in the non-medical wing of the Directorate”. 11. In Food Corporation oflndia & Others v. Parashotam Das Bansal & 0thers3, the Supreme Court observed as under: “12. When employees are denied an opportunity of promotion for long years (in this case 30 years) on the ground that they fell 'within a category of employees excluded from promotional prospect, the superior court will have the jurisdiction to issue necessary direction. 13. If there is no channel of promotion in respect of a particular group of officers resulting in stagnation over the years, the court although may not issue any direction as to in which manner a scheme should be formulated or by reason thereof interfere with the operation of existing channel of promotion to the officers working in different departments and officers of the Government but the jurisdiction to issue direction to make a scheme cannot be denied to a superior court of the country.” \\\ \p SCC 688 iC 100 ’\ a. . ’m , 10. The Supreme Court, while considering opportunity to consider for promotion, in Dr. Ms. 0.Z.Hussain v. Union of Indiaz, observed as under: \ \ \ 12. Further, in A. Sag/anarayana & Others v. S. Purushottam & 0thers4, the Supreme Court observed as under: “25. While saying so, we are not unmindful of the legal principle that nobody.has a right to be promoted; his right being confined to right to be considered therefor.” 13. In .View of the well settled principle of law on consideration of an employee for promotion to the higher post, the case of the petitioners may also be considered in the DPC held regularly as provided under Rule 6(4) of the Rules, 2003. If they are found fit and recommended for regular promotion, proper order may be passed. One may not loose sight of the fact that the promotion Rules, 2003 statutorily provides for holding of DPC meeting every year. Holding of the meeting for other 'e‘categories of the people ignoring the claim of the Circle/Area Organizers is not sufficient compliance of the provisions of Rule 6(4) ofthe Rules, 2003. l4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The State authorities are directed to hold DPC meeting for considering the case of the petitioners for promotion in accordance with law if they are found Within the zone of consideration on the basis of their seniority and other relevant factors. Further if they are found suitable and f1t thereon, they may be recommended for promotion to the higher post The needful shall be done as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of r”A V.‘ ’ - ;ry this order. 15. There shall be costs. no order asto g / \ Sdl- i Satish K. AgnihOtrl Judge ‘ (2008) 5 scc 416 ‘