^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D@: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. Appellants (Respondents) WritADpeal No. 302 of 2010 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Forest Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Conservator of Forest, Raipur Cirde, Jail Road,Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Temtorial Division Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Vs. 1. Mirza Firoz Beg, S/o Shri Mirza Zahir Beg, Aged 42 years, Working as Forest Guard, Territorial Division Rajpur, District Raipur 2. Bihari Ram Verma, S/o late Mohan Lal Verma, Aged 52 years, working as Forest Guard, Territorial Division Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Writ Appeal under Section 2 (11 of the Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (Appeal to Division Benchl Act. 2006 Respondents (Petitioners) Present: Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the Stete. Shri R.S. Patel, counsel for the respondente. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 12m January, 2011) PerDhirendra Mishra. J Heard. 1. This writ appeal is dlrected against the order dated 21.04.2010 (Annexure A-1) passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 1775 of 2008, whereby the learned Single Judge allowing writ petition of the respondents has quashed the impugned order dated 21.04.2008 passed by Secretary, Forest, whereby implementation of out of turn promotion under Rule 15-A(1) of the Chhattisgarh Class III <{^ (Non-Ministerial) Forest Service Recruitment Rules, 1967 (for short, 'the Rules, 1967'), has been stayed until further orders. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the aforesaid order was issued by the State Government on the basisof unanimous reportof the committee constituted for the aforesaid purpose that the rule needs to be amended. He further submits that the learned Single Judge was not justified in observing that the petitioners are entitled to consequential benefrt flowing from the order, in accordance w'rth the Rules, 1967, as it virtuaUy amounts to directing the State to grant promotion to the petitioners as per the Rules, 1967. 3. On the other hand, Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the executive order passed by the State Government is wholly erroneous as the Secretary, Forest, could not have stayed the implementation of duly notified amended Rules, 1967. 4. We have heard learned counsel forthe parties, we have perused the relevant Rule 15-A (1) making provision for out of turn promotion as well as the order dated 21.04.2008 passed by the Secretary, Forest. The learned Single Judge relying upon various decisions of the Supreme Court has quashed the aforesaid executive order passed by the State Government with the following observation. The law is well settled that statutoiy amendments or statutory provisions cannot be stayed by an execuffve orcter or fefter as /?as been dbne OT ff?e present case. Even the same cannot be done by the executive instructions if issued in a proper manner as prwided under the Rules of Business. In Vhe case on hand, the Secretary, it appears, have Qssumed (he pawer of fegislature also in staying the dufy notified amendment in the Rules, 1967. The same is iltegal and unconstituffonal. 'f/^ il&^ ^^ '\k Vijay 5. We are in entire agreement with the above reasoning of the learned Single Judge for quashing the order and find no substance in the appeal; the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge