1 / 18

2026:CGHC:22369

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Reserved on: 15/04/2026

Delivered on: 12/05/2026

Uploaded on: 12/05/2026

WPS No. 1686 of 2025

•Rajju Kumar Bhoi S/o Late Shri Sarju Prasad Aged About 58 Years R/o

House No. 6, Shristi Park, Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur,

C.G.

--- Petitioner(s)

versus

1.State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Labour Department,

Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.)

2.The Labour Commissioner Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,

District - Raipur, C.G.

3.Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through The Secretary, North

Block Sector - 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

4.K.K. Dwivedi, Director Industrial Health And Safety Department, Indrawati

Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

5.Manish Shrivastava, Deputy Director Industrial Health And Safety

Department, Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, C.G.

6.Toshan Kumar Sahu, Deputy Director Industrial Health And Safety

Department, Labour Commissioner Office Floor No. 2, Indrawati Bhawan,

Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

7.Dinesh Prasad Marskole, Deputy Director Industrial Health And Safety

Department, 100 Wardhaman Nagar Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon,

C.G.

--- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner :Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate

For Respondents No. 1 & 2- State

For Respondent No. 3

For Respondent No. 4

:

:

:

Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer

Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate

Mr. Abhipreet Bajpai, Advocate on behalf

of Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate

2 / 18

For Respondent No. 5

For Respondents No. 6 & 7

:

:

Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate

Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate

C.A.V. Order

Per Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

1.Petitioner by way of this writ petition has challenged the order of

promotion of Respondent No. 4 vide impugned order Annexure P-1

dated 24.02.2025 on the ground that the Departmental Promotion

Committee (for short “DPC”) has not followed the provisions for

promotion as provided under Chhattisgarh Labour (Gazette) Service

Rules, 2013 (for short “Service Rules, 2013”) and the Chhattisgarh

Civil Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003 (for short “CCS (Promotion)

Rules, 2003.

2.Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially

appointed on the post of Assistant Director vide order dated

30.06.2001, he thereafter was promoted on the post of Deputy

Director, Industrial Health and Safety vide order dated 23.01.2014

w.e.f. 13.06.2013 and since then he is discharging his duties with

dedication, honesty and up to the satisfaction of higher authorities.

Service of petitioner is governed with the Service Rules, 2013 and for

purpose of promotion CCS (Promotion) Rules, 2003 has also been

made applicable. Respondents-authorities have constituted DPC to

consider the eligible candidates for promotion on the post of Director.

Based on the recommendation made by DPC, Respondent No. 4 has

been promoted to the post of Director, his promotion is made without

following due procedure as provided under the Service Rules, 2013

and the CCS (Promotion) Rules, 2003. Referring to Rule 14(5) to

3 / 18

submit that the requisite service in the feeder cadre for promotion of

the Deputy Director to the post of Director is prescribed as 10 years

and in support of his contention, he referred to Schedule 4 formulated

under Rule 14 & 15 of the Service Rules of 2013. He also contended

that according to his instruction, petitioner secured 18 marks while

assessment of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and the other

candidates who had under the zone of consideration for promotion by

the DPC have been awarded less marks than that of petitioner. He

would submit that even if the requirement in the service rules for

promotion ie., the candidate to be eligible for promotion has secured

‘very good’ grading in all the five years to obtain minimum 15 marks but

for the purpose of promotion under merit-cum-seniority basis inter se

merit is also to be considered by the DPC and the said procedure

adopted is also to be mentioned in the proceedings. In the proceedings

of DPC, there is no such mention but for that all the persons have

secured ‘very good’ grading, the senior most person under the zone of

consideration for promotion has been recommended for promotion and

accordingly Annexure P-1 order of promotion has been issued by the

State Government. The procedure adopted by the DPC is in

contravention of provisions of Service Rules of 2013 and also CCS

(Promotion) Rules, 2003. He contended that for assessing comparative

merit, the DPC is under obligation to evaluate qualitative differences,

overall performance indicators, consistency of service, noteworthy

achievements etc. to assess merit of the officer/ employee in the zone

of consideration of promotion, which was not done by the DPC and

therefore the procedure adopted for promotion by the DPC, is not

sustainable and it is to be quashed and consequently the order of

4 / 18

promotion is also required to be quashed. In support of his contention,

he places reliance on the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

Amit Shandilya vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in

WPS No. 3033 of 2023 order dated 15.01.2026 and the decision

passed by Division Bench of this Court passed in WA No. 265 of 2026

(between S.S. Tigga vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) wherein

challenge made to the decision in WPS No. 3033 of 2023 was

dismissed.

3.Learned counsel for the State submits that the proceedings of

promotion has been conducted strictly in accordance with the

provisions as provided under the Service Rules of 2013 and also CCS

(Promotion) Rules, 2003. He contended that, DPC convened its

meeting on 07.02.2025. In the proceedings of meeting, in para 12, the

committee has fixed benchmark which is to the tune of the provisions

as applicable to the facts of the case. He contended that the DPC has

fixed criteria that overall consideration of the ACRs of five years should

be ‘very good’ and the employees under the zone of consideration for

promotion should not have been awarded Grade-D. In support of his

contention, he referred to the proceedings of DPC. He contended that

petitioner was also eligible for promotion, however, as on the date of

promotion only one post was available to be filled up by way of

promotion and following merit-cum-seniority basis, Respondent No. 4

has been promoted.

4.Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 and Mr.

Bajpai, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 adopted the submission

made by learned counsel for the State.

5 / 18

5.Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 while

supporting the contention of learned State counsel would submit that

according to the provision applicable for promotion is that the

candidate should have achieved ‘very good’ grade in assessment of

five-years of ACRs. According to the proceeding of DPC, all the

employees falling under the zone of consideration for promotion have

been graded ‘very good’ and considering the entire documents placed

before the DPC, Respondent No. 4 being senior has been promoted.

He submits that in the reply of the State Government, marks awarded

to the candidates in the zone of consideration for promotion based on

the ACRs is with respect to awarding of grade only and that only

cannot be considered to be the criteria for promotion when the

promotion is to be made from Class-I post to Class-I post which is

based on merit-cum-seniority. He also contended that the DPC has not

disclosed all the entries made in the ACRs but for the gradation which

is to be awarded based on the assessment and therefore petitioner is

having no case on merit, it is to be dismissed.

6.Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel for Respondents No. 6 & 7

adopts the submission made by learned counsel for Respondent No. 5.

7.I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also

perused the record.

8.Before proceeding further to deal with the submission made by learned

counsel for the parties, in the facts of the case, I find it appropriate to

glance upon the relevant rules applicable in the facts of the case.

9.Undisputedly, service of petitioner is governed by the Service Rules of

2013. Rules 14 of the Service Rules of 2013 talks of ‘Appointment by

6 / 18

Promotion’. Rule 14(1) provides for committee is to be constituted for

preliminary selection of the candidates. Rule 14(3) provides for every

promotion will be in accordance with the provisions of CCS (Promotion)

Rules, 2003. Service Rules of 2013 further provides for Conditions of

Eligibility for promotion and it mentions that the period of service in the

feeder cadre as mentioned in Column (3) of Schedule-4 and are

coming within the criteria as prescribed under sub-rule (2) of Rule

14(6) of Service Rules of 2013. Perusal of Schedule-4 of Service

Rules of 2013 provides for ‘Requisite period of service for promotion in

two sectors ie., (A) Labour; and (B) Industrial Health and Safety.

Petitioner is aggrieved with the promotion made on the post of Director

of Industrial Health and Safety department for promotion from the post

of Deputy Director, Industrial Health and Safety to the post of Director,

Industrial Health and Safety. The minimum service of experience in the

feeder cadre ie., Deputy Director is prescribed as 10 years.

10.As under the Service Rules of 2013, sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 provides

for application of CCS (Promotion) Rules, 2003. Rule 4 of CCS

(Promotion) Rules, 2003 provides for ‘Determination of basis of

Promotion’ and for promotion from the post of Class-I to Class-I, the

basis which is prescribed is merit-cum-seniority. Rule 7 of CCS

(Promotion) Rules, 2003 envisages ‘Promotion on the basis of merit-

cum-seniority’. For considering the number of public servants for

promotion the procedure as provided under Rule 7(1) of CCS

(Promotion) Rules, 2003 is double the number of existing post to be

filled up+4 (plus four). Rule 7(3) provides for names of only such

public servants shall be considered for promotion to have completed

7 / 18

the requisite number of years of service in the feeder cadre/ part of

service/ pay scale of post according to the Recruitment Rules for

promotion and who are within the zone of consideration. Relevant rules

of CCS (Promotion) Rules, 2003 are extracted below for ready

reference:

“7. Promotion on the basis of merit-cum-

seniority.

(3) The names of only such public servants shall

be considered for promotion who have completed

the requisite number of years of service in the

feeder cadre/part of the service/pay scale of post

according to the Recruitment Rules for promotion

and who are within the zone of consideration. In

addition to this, in 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

select list whichever is more, the names of the

required number of the public servants who are in

the zone of consideration 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/Screening Committee is convened shall

be counted from the calendar 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.

(5) The meeting of the Departmental

Promotion/Screening Committee shall be held

every year. It shall consider the suitability of the

public servant for promotion separately with

reference to the vacancies of each previous year

starting with the earliest year onwards. The

Departmental Promotion Committee/Screening

Committee shall consider, the suitability of the

public servants for promotion to fill up the unfilled

vacancies of the earlier year or years separately

and prepare the select list for the relevant year

accordingly. Thereafter, the Departmental

Promotion Committee/Screening Committee shall

consider the suitability of the public servants for

8 / 18

promotion to fill up the existing and anticipated

vacancies of the current year.

(6) The Departmental Promotion/Screening

Committee shall assess the suitability of the public

servants for promotion on the basis of their service

record and with particular reference to the Annual

Confidential Reports (ACRs) for 5 preceding

years. However, in cases where the required

qualifying service is more than 5 years, the

Departmental Promotion/Screening Committee

shall see the record with particular reference to the

ACRs for the years equal to the required qualifying

service.

(7) When one or more ACRs are not available for

any reason for the relevant period, the

Departmental Promotion/Screening Committee

shall consider the ACRs of the years preceding the

period in question.

(8) For the eligibility for promotion from Class I

to higher pay scale of Class I posts, the benchmark

grade shall be "Very Good".

(9) The Departmental Promotion/Screening

Committee shall make a relative/comparative

assessment of the merits of public servants who are

within the zone of consideration and make an

overall grading of the public servants' merit on the

basis of their service records and place them in the

categories as "Outstanding", "Very-Good",

"Good", "Average" and "Poor" as the case may be.

However, only those public servants who are

graded as "Very Good" and above will be included

in the select list, by placing the public servants

graded as "Outstanding" on top followed by those

graded as "Very-Good", subject to availability of

vacancies, with the public servants with the same

grading maintaining their inter-se seniority in the

feeder cadre/part of the service/pay scales of post.

(11) The promotion to the higher cadre/part of the

service/pay scale of post shall be made from these

select lists according to the names appearing in the

said select lists and according to the prescribed

order shown in the roster. Only the public servants

belonging to the same class for which the posts

reserved shall fill up reserved posts.

(12) In order to determine the inter-se seniority of

the public servants belonging to the three

categories in the cadre/part of the service/pay scale

of post to which the promotion is to be made, a

combined select list of the above three categories

9 / 18

of public servants shall be prepared according to

the order of merit determined by the Departmental

Promotion/Screening Committee.”

11.In the reply, learned counsel for the State has enclosed the gradation

list as on 01.04.2021 of Class-I employees. The proceedings of

meeting dated 07.02.2025 convened by the DPC is also enclosed as

Annexure R-2. In para-6, DPC mentions that the public servant who

has completed 10 years of service on the post of Deputy Director only

will be considered for promotion and the period of 10 years is to be

computed as on 01.01.2023. Number of vacancy available for

promotion, mentioned in para-8, is one and post vacant is shown to be

from the year 2023. In para-11, it mentions that only one post in the

cadre of Director to be filled up by promotion, (100% promotional post)

and further mentions about fixing of minimum benchmark in para-

12(A), which is extracted below for ready reference.

“12. प

दोन्नति हेतु छ

.ग. श्रम (रा

जपत्रित

) से

वा भर्ती नियम

2013 ए

वं

छ.ग. लो

क सेवा पदोन्नति नियम

2003 के

संदर्भ में वर्गीकरण

-

(अ) न्

यूनतम कसौटी

:-

स

मिति ने विचाराधीन पदोन्नति के लिये निम्नलिखित कसौटियां तय

की-

(1) सं

निष्ठा संदेह से परे हो एवं सनिष्ठा प्रमाणित हो।

(2) स

मिति ने तय किया कि

05 व

र्षों के गोपनीय रिकार्ड का समग्र

मू

ल्यांकन कम से कम बहुत अच्छा श्रेणी का हो तथा किसी भी वर्ष

"घ" श्रे

णी एवं प्रतिकूल टिप्पणी न हो। योग्यता

-स

ह

-व

रिष्ठता के

सि

द्धांत पर होने वाली पदोन्नति के लिये आमतौर पर न्यूनतम

क

सोटी बहुत अच्छा

(न्

यूनतम

15 अं

क

) हो

ना वाहिये।

(3) उक्त 05 व

र्षों में से अतिम वर्ष का गोपनीय प्रतिवेदन अनिवार्य

रूप

से उपलब्ध हो तथा वह कम से कम

"ब

हुत अच्छा

' श्रे

णी का

हो

ना चाहिये।

(4) उक्त 05 व

र्षों में से किसी भी वर्ष का अचल सम्पत्ति विवरण

अ

प्राप्त होने से प्रकरण परिभ्रमण में रखा जायेगा।

10 / 18

12.Para 12(B) is also relevant in the facts of the case, which is also

extracted below for ready reference.

ब) पां

च वर्षों के गोपनीय प्रतिवेदनों के आधार पर समिति द्वारा की गई

अ

नुशंसा निम्नानुसार है

:-

स.क्र. अ

धिकारी का नाम

स

मिति की अनुशंसा

01

श्री

के

. के. द्वि

वेदी

उप

युक्त

02

श्री

मनीष श्रीवास्तव

प

द रिक्त न होने से अनुशंसा नहीं।

03

श्री

तोषण कुमार साहू

प

द रिक्त न होने से अनुशंसा नहीं।

04

श्री

दिनेश प्रसाद मर्सकोले

प

द रिक्त न होने से अनुशंसा नहीं।

05

श्री

रज्जू कुमार भोई

प

द रिक्त न होने से अनुशंसा नहीं।

टी

प

- मा

ननीय उच्च न्यायालय में याचिका कमांक

WP (PIL) No.

91/2019, WPS No. 9778/2019 ए

वं अन्य याचिकाओं में पारित

आ

देश दिनांक

18.04.2024 के

परिपालन में डीपीसी की कार्यवाही

की

गई।

13.From bare perusal of the proceedings of meeting convened by DPC as

referred above and extracted, it is clearly appearing that the

committee has only considered the ACRs of the public servants of 5

years for considering them to be eligible for promotion. The overall

grading of 05 year ACRs should be ‘Very Good’ and in none of the 05

years government servants have been graded ‘D’ and the benchmark

is fixed as minimum 15 marks. It is further fixed that out of five years,

ACRs of the last year should mandatorily be available and government

servant should not be awarded less than Very Good. In Clause-B of

para-12, the committee has placed names of government servants and

Respondent No. 4 has been mentioned to be suitable and the other

four though found to be suitable, they have not been promoted

because of non-availability of vacant post.

11 / 18

14.The Service Rules of 2013 is applicable to be facts of the case.

Schedule 4(B) provides for the minimum service in the feeder cadre to

be 10 years for promotion from the post of Deputy Director, Industrial

Health and Safety to the post of Director, Industrial Health and Safety.

15.Sub-rule 6 of Rule 7 of the CCS (Promotion) Rules, 2003 provides for

the Departmental Promotion/ Screening Committee shall assess

suitability of the public servants for promotion on the basis of their

service record and with particular reference to the Annual Confidential

Reports for five preceding years and where the required qualifying

service is more than 05 years, the DPC/ Screening Committee shall

see the record with particular reference to the ACRs for the years equal

to the required qualifying service.

16.In the case at hand, according to Schedule-4 of the Service Rules of

2013, the qualifying services is envisaged as 10 years for promotion to

the post of Director but the DPC has not considered ACRs of the public

servants under the zone of consideration of 10 years but have

considered ACRs of only 05 years. This procedure adopted by the

DPC is in contravention to the relevant rules and provisions applicable

to the facts of the case for promotion of Deputy Director to the post of

Director. On this ground alone, the proceedings of DPC is vitiated in

the eye of law.

17.One more important aspect which the DPC has not considered while

assessing suitability of government servant/ Deputy Director for their

promotion on the post of Director is the procedure as provided under

sub-rule 9 of Rule 7 of the CCS (Promotion) Rules, 2003; it normally

provides that the DPC should make a relative/ comparative

12 / 18

assessment of the merits of public servants who are within the zone of

consideration and make an overall grading of the public servants’ merit

on the basis of their service records and place them in the categories

as “Outstanding”, “Very Good”, “Good”, “Average” and “Poor” as the

case may be.

18.From perusal of the aforementioned provision, which is also extracted I

preceding paragraph would show that apart from grading awarded in

the ACRs, it is for the DPC to again prepare relative/ comparative

assessment while considering the candidature of the eligible

candidates for promotion during meeting of DPC and to grade them as

“Outstanding”, “Very Good”, “Good”, “Average” and “Poor” as the case

may be, upon making an overall grading. It further provides that upon

grading to the eligible public servants for promotion, they are to be

placed in descending order based on their merit. It also mentions that

the public servant who has been graded to be “Outstanding” on the top

maintaining their inter se seniority in the feeder cadre.

19.Where rules provide for procedure that the DPC shall award grading of

eligible employees upon comparative/ relative assessment then it was

mandatory for the DPC to further assess the merit of the employees

found eligible for promotion. For this type of assessment several

factors are required to be taken into consideration in micro analysis of

the ACRs of relevant period.

20.Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Electronics Development

Corpn. Ltd. v. Seema Sharma, reported in (2009) 7 SCC 311 has

discussed distinguishing feature between ‘merit-cum-seniority’ and

‘seniority-cum-merit’ and observed thus:

13 / 18

8. The principle of merit-cum-seniority puts greater

emphasis on merit and ability and where promotion

is governed by this principle seniority plays a less

significant role. However, seniority is to be given

weightage when merit and ability more or less are

equal among the candidates who are to be promoted.

9. On the other hand, insofar as the principle of

seniority-cum-merit is concerned it gives greater

importance to seniority and promotion to a senior

person cannot be denied unless the person concerned

is found totally unfit on merit to discharge the duties

of the higher post. The totality of the service of the

employee has to be considered for promotion on the

basis of seniority-cum-merit (see Jagathigowda,

C.N. v. Cauvery Gramina Bank [(1996) 9 SCC 677 :

1996 SCC (L&S) 1310 : AIR 1996 SC 2733] ).”

21.Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravikumar Dhansukhlal

Maheta & Anr. vs. High Court of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2024)

11 SCC 424 while considering the issue of promotion based on merit-

cum-seniority principle has held that “merit” is defined as the quality of

being good and deserving. In the context of employment, it is the sum

total of various qualities which are relevant for fulfilling the

requirements of the employment. There are multiple attributes of merit

which must be taken into consideration such as character, integrity, and

devotion to the assigned official duties. The manner in which the

candidate discharges their final duties would also be a relevant factor.

Further, past performance is a relevant factor to judge the merit of the

candidate, particularly in promotional posts, since it would indicate the

capability of the candidate to discharge their duties effectively. Merely

because any person possesses higher qualifications or higher marks in

an examination does not mean that they are meritorious than others. It

further held that where promotion is on the basis of the principle of

“merit-cum-seniority” a greater emphasis is placed on merit, whereas,

14 / 18

when the promotion is on the basis of the principle of “seniority-cum-

merit”, a greater emphasis is laid on seniority. One must be mindful

that the terms “merit-cum-seniority” or “seniority-cum-merit” are not

statutorily defined by the legislature. These principles are judicial

connotations that have been evolved over a period of years through

various decisions of Supreme Court and the High Courts whilst dealing

with matters of promotion pertaining to different statutes and service

conditions. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that Merit plays a

predominant role in and seniority alone cannot be given primacy.

Comparative assessment of merit is a crucial, though not a mandatory

factor. Only where merit is equal in all respects can inter se seniority be

considered. Meaning that a junior candidate can be promoted over the

senior if the junior is more meritorious and held thus:

“103. In Bhagwandas Tiwari [Bhagwandas Tiwari

v. Dewas Shajapur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, (2006)

12 SCC 574 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 125] this Court

held that where for the purpose of promotion a high

threshold of minimum required marks has been

prescribed, the same would be an instance of

“merit-cum-seniority”, even in the absence of a

comparative assessment of merit, thus clearly

indicating that these postulations are not mandatory.

As even without an element of comparative merit,

the promotion could be based on “merit-cum-

seniority”, provided that merit is given prominence

over seniority in the promotion process. Therefore,

the only factor that sets apart “merit-cum-seniority”

from “seniority-cum-merit” is whether emphasis is

laid on merit or seniority. All other ancillary factors

or postulations such as comparative merit or a

minimum specified benchmark may or may not be

material to these principles.

104. The fluid nature of the principles of “merit-

cum-seniority” and “seniority-cum-merit” is further

evinced by the decision of this Court in K.

Samantaray [K. Samantaray v. National Insurance

15 / 18

Co. Ltd., (2004) 9 SCC 286 : 2004 SCC (L&S)

864] wherein although the policy stipulated that

promotion would be on the basis of “seniority-cum-

merit”, yet this Court after going through the

elaborate promotion policy held that a third mode

of promotion known as the “Hybrid Mode of

Promotion” has come to be recognised by this

Court, wherein it is open for the employer to

specify the area and parameter of weight required to

be given to merit and seniority for the purpose of

promotion. It was further held that it is always open

for the employer or the selection body to decide and

stipulate their own criteria for adjudging the claims

on the principles of “seniority-cum-merit” or

“merit-cum-seniority” depending upon the class,

category and nature of post and the requirements of

efficiency.

106. In such scenario, these principles serve as a

beacon for the selection body which, in exercise of

its delegated legislative powers, can formulate

policies and lay down different criteria and

conditions of assessment for the purposes of

promotion. It does so by providing the selection

body with the tools for formulating the promotion

policy in the form of the aforementioned

postulations or criteria which are permissible under

these principles. Thereafter, the selection body can,

as a conscious choice, decide the criteria it deems

necessary or most suitable for the purpose of

promotion keeping in mind the nature of the post,

the requirements of service, etc. For instance, where

the promotion is based on “merit-cum-seniority”,

the selection body may opt for a comparative

assessment of merit, more particularly, in cases

where the promotions are competitive in nature or it

may say that seniority should only be considered

where merit is equal in all respects if the post is of

such nature that it requires significant knowledge

and ability.

107. However, at the same time, this flexibility

should not be understood as a complete autonomy.

While the statutory rules or, in the absence of the

same, the promotion policy formulated must be

followed, they must at the same time have some

nexus or bearing with the nature of the post and the

16 / 18

requirements of service. For instance, where the

promotion is based on “merit-cum-seniority” and

the nature of promotion allows for superseding a

senior, the selection body whilst formulating the

promotion policy cannot simpliciter as a matter of

choice refuse to provide for assessment of

comparative merit, as the promotion herein is by its

nature an accelerated form of promotion and as

such comparative assessment becomes crucial.

108. The principle of “merit-cum-seniority” and

“seniority-cum-merit” are a flexible and a fluid

concept akin to broad principles within which the

actual promotion policy may be formulated. They

are not strict rules or requirements and by no means

can supplant or take the place of statutory rules or

policies that have been formulated, if any. These

principles are dynamic in nature very much like a

spectrum and their application and ambit depends

upon the rules, the policy, the nature of the post and

the requirements of service. The sketch below

illustrates the broad spectrum in which these

principles operate:

109. Thus, the principles applicable to promotion

such as the principle of “merit-cum-seniority” and

“seniority-cum-merit” can best be described as two

ends of a spectrum. They are broad categories or

frameworks for promotion and do represent the

actual modalities by which promotions are to take

place. It is the rules and the promotion policy, along

with the intention of the legislature or the selection

board, as the case may be, that supplements these

principles and delineates the actual modality of how

promotion is to take place. Through these rules and

promotion policy, the legislature or the selection

body specifies the area and the parameters or the

weightage which is to be given to the aspect of

“merit” and “seniority” on the said spectrum.

17 / 18

110. No doubt while construing the rule of

“seniority-cum-merit” or “merit-cum-seniority”,

some of the observations of the decided cases are

not uniform. In State of Mysore v. C.R. Sheshadri

[State of Mysore v. C.R. Sheshadri, (1974) 4 SCC

308 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 264 : AIR 1974 SC 460] ,

Krishna Iyer, J., held that if the criterion for

promotion is one of “seniority-cum-merit”,

comparative merit may have to be assessed, if

length of service is equal or an outstanding junior is

available for promotion.”

22.In the case at hand, from perusal of proceeding of DPC, it is apt clear

that firstly the DPC has not considered ACRs of the period prescribed

for qualifying service ie., 10 years but have considered ACRs of the

eligible government servants of only 05 years and they have

contravene the provisions under the Service Rules of 2013 and the

CCS (Promotion) Rules, 2003. Further perusal of proceeding of DPC

would show that though according to the rules as mentioned above,

promotion is to be made on “merit-cum-seniority” basis, however, there

is no determination of the comparative merit of the eligible candidates

so as to arrive at a conclusion that person recommended by the DPC

is meritorious candidate and placing them in descending order

according to their merit. In the procedure of promotion as prescribed

based on merit-cum-seniority, merit has to be given predominance

upon seniority. Role of seniority would come into play only when two

persons have placed on equal merit, otherwise even though

meritorious, government servant may be below in seniority has to be

recommended for promotion.

23.The DPC in the opinion of this Court has erred in not considering ACRs

of 10 years which is qualifying service for promotion on the post of

Director from the post of Deputy Director and have not assessed merit

18 / 18

of the eligible government servant comparatively/relatively and

therefore the proceedings of DPC is vitiated in the eye of law.

Consequently, promotion made based on the erroneous

recommendation made by the DPC is also not sustainable in the eye of

law.

24.For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is allowed and the order of

promotion Annexure P-1 dated 24.02.2025 which is under challenge in

this writ petition is hereby quashed. Respondents-authorities are

directed to constitute review DPC of the meeting of DPC dated

07.02.2025 to consider the candidature of the eligible employees for

their promotion on the post of Director, in accordance with the Rules of

2013 and CCS (Promotion) Rules, 2003. Let this exercise of holding

review DPC and making recommendation and issuance of order of

promotion based on new recommendation shall be completed within a

period of 03 months from the date of receipt of order.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu)

Judge

pwn