OM PRAKASH DEWANGAN vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Digitally signed
by ALOK
SHARMA
Date:
2026.09.02
17:06:26 +0530
ALOK
SHARMA
1

CGHC010506822025 2026:CGHC:38752-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 944 of 2025
1 - Om Prakash Dewangan S/o Dawram Dewangan Aged About 37
Years Occupation Service Posted As Sub Inspector (Radio) At 7th
Battalion Caf Bhilai Presently Working At Radio Training Centre, Bhilai
District -Durg (C.G.)
2 - Dharmesh Kumar Sahu S/o Bisahat Ram Sahu Aged About 35 Years
Occupation Service Presently Posted And Working As Sub Inspector
(Radio) State Cyber Cell, Police Headquarters Raipur District- Raipur
(C.G.)
3 - Aparajita Singh Rana D/o Rajendra Kumar Singh Rana Aged About
31 Years Occupation Service Presently Posted And Working As Sub
Inspector (Radio) State Cyber Cell, Police Headquarters Raipur District-
Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Gaurav Shukla S/o Ram Chandra Shukla Aged About 33 Years
Occupation Service Presently Posted And Working As Sub Inspector
(Radio) Special Branch, Ats Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home
Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan , Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter Atal Nagar, Nawa
Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Additional Director General Of Police (Telecommunication ) Raipur
District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)

2
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate.
For State : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
01/09/2026
1. Heard Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant as
well as Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the
Respondent/State.
2. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the
appellants against the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 11544 of 2025, titled Om
Prakash Dewangan and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh &
Another , whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants herein
came to be dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the case, as projected before the learned Single
Judge, are that the appellants were appointed on the post of Sub
Inspector (Radio) vide order dated 30.10.2017 after successfully
qualifying the prescribed recruitment process and joined their
respective posts in November, 2017. Their services are governed
by the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service
Recruitment Rules, 2021, under which the next promotional post
from Sub Inspector (Radio) is Inspector (Radio) and eight years of
service on the feeder post is prescribed for promotion. The

3
appellants contended that, in view of Rule 6(2) of the Chhattisgarh
Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003, particularly the
Explanation thereto, the qualifying service is required to be
computed from the calendar year in which the employee joined
the feeder cadre and not from the actual date of joining. Thus,
according to the appellants, having joined the feeder cadre in the
year 2017, they had completed the requisite eight years of
qualifying service in the year 2024 and were eligible for
consideration for promotion as on 01.01.2025. It was also
contended that seven posts of Inspector (Radio) were lying vacant
and the appellants, being senior in the gradation list and falling
within the zone of consideration, were entitled to be considered
for promotion.
4. It was further the case of the appellants that despite their
eligibility, the respondents failed to convene the Departmental
Promotion Committee and consider their cases for promotion,
though DPCs had been convened and promotion orders had been
issued in respect of other officers of the department. The
appellants, having made representations to the authorities without
any favourable response, preferred W.P.(S) No. 11544 of 2025
before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, vide
order dated 10.10.2025, dismissed the writ petition holding that
the appellants would complete eight years of service in October,
2025 as per their respective dates of joining and would
consequently become eligible for promotion on 01.01.2026.

4
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants have preferred
the present intra-Court appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that
the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition
by holding that the appellants would complete eight years of
service only in October, 2025, and would consequently become
eligible for promotion from 01.01.2026. He would submit that the
said finding is contrary to the specific provision contained in the
Explanation to Rule 6(2) of the Chhattisgarh Public Services
(Promotion) Rules, 2003, which expressly provides that, for the
purpose of computing eligibility for promotion, the qualifying
service is to be counted from the calendar year in which the
Government servant joined the feeder cadre and not from the
actual date of joining. Since the appellants joined the feeder cadre
in the year 2017, their qualifying service of eight years stood
completed in the year 2024 and, therefore, they were eligible to
be considered for promotion as on 01.01.2025.
6. Learned counsel would further submit that under the Chhattisgarh
Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules,
2021, the promotional post of Sub Inspector (Radio) is Inspector
(Radio) and eight years of service is prescribed as the qualifying
service. The appellants satisfy the said eligibility condition and are
also senior in the gradation list. It is submitted that seven posts of
Inspector (Radio) were lying vacant and, despite the appellants
being eligible and falling within the zone of consideration, their

5
cases were not considered by the respondents. Learned counsel
would contend that the Departmental Promotion Committee is
required to be convened ordinarily every year in terms of Rule 15
of the Rules, 2021, and the respondents had already convened
the DPC and granted promotion to other officers of the
department, but the cases of the appellants were not considered.
7. Learned counsel would also submit that the respondents cannot
rely upon any departmental SOP or instructions to defeat the
statutory right of the appellants to be considered for promotion
under the Rules of 2003. Such instructions cannot override the
statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. It is further submitted that other wings of the
Police Department have been extending the benefit of
computation of qualifying service from the calendar year in
accordance with the Explanation to Rule 6(2), and even
employees who joined in the later months of a calendar year have
been granted the benefit of the entire calendar year for the
purpose of promotion. Thus, denial of the same benefit to the
appellants is arbitrary and discriminatory.
8. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order
dated 10.10.2025 suffers from an erroneous interpretation of the
applicable service rules and deserves to be set aside. He would
pray that the present writ appeal be allowed and the respondents
be directed to consider the appellants for promotion to the post of

6
Inspector (Radio), in accordance with the applicable rules and
their eligibility as on 01.01.2025.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State
would submit that the present writ appeal is devoid of merit and
has rightly been preferred against the order dated 10.10.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge. He would submit that the
appellants had approached the learned Single Judge seeking a
direction to the respondents to convene the Departmental
Promotion Committee and consider their cases for promotion from
the post of Sub Inspector (Radio) to Inspector (Radio). However,
as on the relevant cut-off date, i.e. 01.01.2025, none of the
appellants had completed the requisite eight years of qualifying
service prescribed under the applicable Recruitment Rules. Their
actual dates of joining were 04.11.2017, 06.11.2017, 12.11.2017
and 13.11.2017 respectively and, therefore, they had completed
only about seven years and one month of service as on
01.01.2025. Consequently, the respondents were justified in not
considering their cases for promotion.
10. Learned counsel would further submit that Rule 15 of the
Chhattisgarh Police Executive Class III (Non-Gazetted) Service
Recruitment Rules, 2021 provides for appointment by promotion,
whereas Rule 16 specifically provides that the Departmental
Promotion Committee shall consider the cases of persons who,
on the first day of January of the relevant year, have completed
the prescribed number of years of service. As per Schedule-IV of

7
the Rules, 2021, eight years of service is prescribed for promotion
from the post of Sub Inspector (Radio) to Inspector (Radio). Thus,
the appellants were not eligible for consideration as on
01.01.2025. Learned counsel would submit that the learned
Single Judge, after considering the relevant statutory provisions
and the respective pleadings of the parties, has rightly held that
the appellants would complete the requisite eight years of service
only in October, 2025 and would consequently become eligible for
consideration for promotion from 01.01.2026.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State would also
submit that the appellants cannot claim promotion as a matter of
right merely because vacancies are available, as the right of an
employee is only to be considered for promotion in accordance
with the applicable service rules and upon fulfillment of the
prescribed eligibility criteria. The fact that seven posts of Inspector
(Radio) were vacant does not dispense with the mandatory
requirement of completing the prescribed qualifying service. It is
further submitted that the interpretation sought to be placed by the
appellants upon the Explanation to Rule 6(2) of the Chhattisgarh
Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003 cannot be divorced from
the specific provisions of the Recruitment Rules governing their
service, particularly Rule 16 of the Rules, 2021, which requires
fulfillment of the prescribed qualifying service as on the first day of
January of the relevant year.

8
12. Learned counsel would further submit that the appellants have
failed to demonstrate any violation of their fundamental or legal
rights warranting interference in intra-Court appellate jurisdiction.
The learned Single Judge has considered the matter in its proper
perspective and has passed the impugned order in accordance
with the applicable rules. There being no perversity, illegality or
jurisdictional error in the order dated 10.10.2025, the present writ
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
13. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length
and carefully considered their rival submissions. We have also
perused the record of the case, the relevant service rules and the
impugned order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(S) No. 11544 of 2025.
14. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and having carefully examined the relevant
provisions of the Chhattisgarh Public Services (Promotion) Rules,
2003 and the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Non-Gazetted)
Service Recruitment Rules, 2021, the short question which arises
for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether, for the
purpose of determining the eligibility of the appellants for
promotion, the qualifying period of eight years is to be reckoned
from the actual date of joining the feeder cadre or from the
calendar year in which the appellants joined the feeder cadre.
15. The appellants were appointed to the post of Sub Inspector
(Radio) in the year 2017 and admittedly joined the said post in

9
November, 2017. Under Schedule-IV of the Rules, 2021, eight
years of service in the post of Sub Inspector (Radio) is prescribed
as the qualifying service for promotion to the post of Inspector
(Radio). Rule 6(2) of the Rules, 2003 provides that the names of
only such public servants shall be considered for promotion who
have completed the prescribed qualifying service in their feeder
cadre in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. More
importantly, the Explanation appended to Rule 6(2) specifically
provides the manner of computation of eligibility and states that
the period of qualifying service, as on 1st January of the relevant
year in which the Departmental Promotion Committee is
convened, shall be counted from the calendar year in which the
public servant has joined the feeder cadre , and not from the
date of joining of the cadre, part of the service or pay scale of the
post.
16. Rule 6 of the Rules of 2003 deals with promotion on the basis of
seniority subject to fitness. For the purpose of the present case,
sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 6 are relevant and are reproduced
hereinbelow:
“6. Promotion on the basis of seniority subject to
fitness.-
(1) In such cases where the promotion is to be made on
the basis of seniority subject to fitness, there shall be no
zone of consideration for all categories.
(2) The names of only such public servants shall be
considered for promotion, who have completed the
prescribed qualifying service in their feeder cadre/part of
the service/pay scale of post according to the
Recruitment Rules. It is, however, not necessary to

10
consider all the names of public servants who have
completed the prescribed minimum length of service but
only such number of cases of public servants shall be
considered according to the seniority, which shall be
sufficient to cover the number of existing and anticipated
vacancies due to retirement during the year under each
category. In addition to this, with a view of inclusion, in
the select list, the names of two public servants or 25
percent of the number of the public servants included in
the select list, whichever is more, the names of the
required number of public servants shall be considered
for each category to fill up the unforeseen vacancies
occurring during the course of the aforesaid period.
Explanation. - Manner of computation for eligibility for
promotion . Period of qualifying service on 1st January of
the relevant year in which Departmental Promotion
Committee is convened shall be counted from the
calender year in which the public servant has joined the
feeding cadre/part of the service/pay scale of the post
and not from the date of joining of the cadre/part of the
service/pay scale of post.”
17. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision leaves no manner of
doubt that the rule-making authority has consciously prescribed
the calendar year of joining as the starting point for computation
of qualifying service and has specifically excluded the actual date
of joining as the basis for such computation. Therefore, once the
appellants had joined the feeder cadre in the year 2017, the entire
calendar year 2017 is liable to be reckoned as the first year of
qualifying service. Consequently, the qualifying service of the
appellants would be computed as the first year in 2017, second
year in 2018, third year in 2019, fourth year in 2020, fifth year in
2021, sixth year in 2022, seventh year in 2023 and eighth year in
2024. Thus, as on 01.01.2025, the appellants had already
completed the prescribed eight years of qualifying service.

11
18. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge fell into error
in proceeding on the basis of the actual dates of joining of the
appellants and holding that they would complete eight years of
service only in October, 2025 and would, therefore, become
eligible for consideration for promotion from 01.01.2026. Such an
interpretation runs contrary to the express language of the
Explanation to Rule 6(2) of the Rules, 2003. When the statutory
provision itself specifically provides that the qualifying service is to
be counted from the calendar year in which the employee joined
the feeder cadre and not from the date of joining, the actual dates
of joining of the appellants in November, 2017 cannot be made
the basis for postponing their eligibility.
19. It is also relevant that Rule 16 of the Rules, 2021 requires the
eligibility of an employee to be examined with reference to the first
day of January of the relevant year. Therefore, once the
appellants had completed the requisite eight years of qualifying
service by reckoning their service from the calendar year 2017,
they were eligible to be considered for promotion as on
01.01.2025, subject, of course, to their fulfillment of the other
conditions prescribed under the Rules. The availability of
vacancies and the appellants' position in the gradation list further
required their cases to be placed before the competent
Departmental Promotion Committee in accordance with law.
20. The contention of the respondent-State that the appellants had
completed only about seven years and one month of actual

12
service as on 01.01.2025 cannot be accepted in view of the
specific statutory method of computation prescribed under the
Explanation to Rule 6(2) of the Rules, 2003. The said provision
cannot be rendered otiose by adopting a method of calculation
based upon the actual date of joining, when the rule itself
expressly directs that the computation shall be made from the
calendar year of joining. The learned Single Judge, therefore, was
not justified in declining consideration of the appellants' cases for
promotion on the ground that they had not completed eight years
of service as on 01.01.2025.
21. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10.10.2025 passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 11544 of 2025 cannot be
sustained and is hereby set aside . The present writ appeal is
accordingly allowed . The respondents are directed to consider
the cases of the appellants for promotion to the post of Inspector
(Radio), treating them as having completed the requisite eight
years of qualifying service as on 01.01.2025, in accordance with
the applicable Rules. Such consideration shall be made by the
competent Departmental Promotion Committee, subject to
fulfillment of all other eligibility conditions and availability of
vacancies with all consequential benefits, in accordance with law.
Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Alok