-1- IN TEE HON’BLE HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP‘UR WP. NO. [0! i .QCO6 SB {Petition UIA 226/227 Constitution of India) PETITIONER : / 1- Tikaram Yadav S/O Shri Naihuram Yadav Aged about 44 years.,Occupation— Service Asstt.Grads~HI, Coliectorate R/o H15, Collector Colony,Kabirdham (CG) Shirish Pandit,S/O Shri MA. Pandit Aged about 42 years, Occupation Sarvic Asstt. Gmde-HI, Collectoraté, Kabirdham R/O H/2, Collaster Colony, Kabirdham(C,G‘ VERSUS /’1 - State Qf Chhat‘cisgarh Through Colladcohand Chaiiman,D.P.C.. District Kabirdham (0G,) ( N g3 Shri Navnaet Dubey,AS$tt Grade-m, Collcstorateé Kabirdham Rx’O Hf? Callector Colony , Kabirdham (C.G.) Shri Mohan Lal Nishad, Asstt Grade-III, Callectorate Kabirdham R/O H8, Collector Calony , Kabirdham (C‘GJ Shri Ram Narayan Soni, Asstt Gracia-IE Collectorate Kabimham .R/O Hfi 0, Collector Colcny ,Kab'u‘dham (0(1) a HI§H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wn't Petition No. 1017' of2006 Petitioner: Tikamm Yadav & another Versus Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh 8t. ofhers single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Ayihotri. Shri Yashwant Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri V. V. S. Murty, Deputy Advocate General far the Respondent No.1. None for the respondents No. 2 to 4, though served. The following order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Ayihotri, J. 1. The petitioners have tiled this petition impugnjng the order dated ’Y. 12.2005 (Annexure P/ 1) passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 have been promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-H. \ The mdisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners were appointed 'on the post of Assistant Grade-III vide order dated 15.2.1999 (Annexure P/3). According to the petitioners the respondents No. 2 and 3 were appointed on 22.6.1999 and the respondent No.4 was appointed on 15.11.1999, on the post of Assistant Grade-III. According to the gradation list (Annexure P/ 2) the seniority of the petitioners and the respondents No. 2 to 4 are as under :- O R D E R {Passed on this 17th day ofJanuaIy, 2007) Shri Ram Narayan Soni - Respondent No.4 - Srl. No. 32 x w i Shri Tikaram Yadav - Petitioner No. 1 - Srl. No. 26 Shri Shirish Pandit - Petitioner No.2 — Srl. No. 27 Shri Navneet Dubey ~ Respondent No.2 - Srl. No. 28 Shri Mohan Lal Nishad -. Respondent No.3 - Srl. No. 29 3. I have heard Shn‘ Yashwant ’l‘iwaxi, learned counsel appearing for ' the petitionars and Shri V. V. S. Murty, leaned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent No. llState and perused the record. 4. Leaxned counsel for the petitioners submits that the promotion from the post of Assistant Glade-III to the post of Assistant Grade-II should have been based on the criteria of seniority-cum- men't, as provided in‘the Chhatn'sgarh Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2003 (for shmt ‘the Rules, 2003’ ). He further submits that there is no stigma in the service career of the petitioners, even then juniors to them have been promoted, ignoring the claim of the petitioners. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court passed in the case of K. P. Patel Vs. state of Chhattisgarh & another {2006 (1) C.G.L.J. 264}. He submits that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the above decision of this Court. 5. Rule 6 of the Rules, 2003 provides for assessment of the employee for promotion on the basis of merit—cumsuitability. Sub-rule (7] of the Rule 6 clearly mandates that the departmental promotion ~ committee would assess the candidate for promotion separately by classifying them as ‘fit’ or ‘unfit’. Sub-rule (2) and (7) of the Rule 6 are relevant, which are quoted herein below :- “(nm‘nmsaaenmwnwwmm animmaaiti’tmnmmwuHIf/Wnm/ W$Waahnsmnmwmahsitnsmw mmuwnwwWMmme‘a‘iw. %%%Wammwm$§.m$mm aswimwnmmm$mmm animatueirruaitnmmmmawwminm nmsmumm$mmmsm m§1filw$m.@mm$m§am 3mm m&m$m.i}m@w¥$mm whiimm wf$m$25um,m1$m §.$mmw1imm$a§amémm$ mmmmi¥ai$W$wm¥wmwmmt (7)wwl% uai‘$m%$%.mnmm%m. uaiwaiw1§m$mwmm$m$mm q9m~tgmi W EMT, amfa ah? W $ mali' 7m WE gm W aim W Ta‘i‘ 3h“ 13W W mnwwiiam$maafuvqmsrqsmmwm am 8% “mm” mm “maa”$ m Ii‘ waga Fifth I” 6. The identical issue cams info consideration in the matter of K. P. Patel (supra). This Court after having examined van‘ous aspects of the case, held as under.- “17. It is therefore evident that the seniority subject to fitness does not contemplate assessment of comparative merit of the candidates as the mness is the basis of selection of categorize 'fit’ on the basis of individual merits, considered separately. The select list is prepaxed thereafter on the basis of seniority for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. In the pmsent case the respondents have clearly assessed the criteria on the basis of the comparative assessment by recording their performance as ‘very good’, good’ and ‘does not meet the en'teria’, not on their own merit separately.” t 7. The respondents have tiled the proceedings of the depaxhnental promotion committee dated 23.8.2005 as Annexuxe R/ 1 and R/2 which indicate that the candidates were not assessed as ‘tit’ or ‘unfit’. There is a statutory provision for assessing the titness of the candidates in accordance with Rule 6 (7) of the Rules, 2003. The departmental promotion [committee has completely ignoted the statutory provisions as enshrined in Rule 6 (7) of the Rules, 2003, by assessing merits of the candidateg on compaxative assessment basis by awaniing marks, not assessing sepamtely on its own merit of a particular candidate for categorizing as ‘1it’ or ‘not iit’. . '8. In View of The above, the petition is allowed. The respondents axe directed to consider the case of the petitioners along with other eligible candidates for promotion strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, 2003‘ Consequently the impugned order dated 7.12.2005 (Annexuxe P/ 1) is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. R Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur A;