Dr. Umesh Kumar Shrivastava vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Alok Bakshi, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2/State and Mr. B.D. Guru, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 235/PSC.

The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 04.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5076 of 2007 (Dr. Anil Mushriff Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petitioners, who are working as professor in the Government colleges have filed writ petition and have prayed that DPC dated 23.07.2007 and list dated 10.08.2007 be kindly quashed and the list dated 19.08.2006 be declared to be in force, has been disposed off.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has observed that the appellants can raise their grievance afresh. It is submitted by him that without appreciating the entire grounds raised in the writ petition and without giving a detailed finding on the grounds raised in the writ petition, the writ petition has been disposed off. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has committed grave illegality while disposing off the writ petition. As such, the present writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel appearing for PSC supports the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record.

The learned Single Judge after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials available on record has rightly dismissed the writ petition observing as follows :

“2. The State and PSC have filed their return and also produced the record of the DPC. The DPC record produced by the State would reveal that when 2006 promotion was carried out, the criteria for promotion Merit-cum-Seniority was adopted. Subsequently, when 2007 DPC was conducted, still the petitioners along with other private respondents were promoted on the post of professor with effect from 2006 and since then the petitioners and the private respondents are working on the post of professor. The services of the petitioners are governed by the Chhattisgarh Sheikshanik Seva (Mahavidyalayeen Sakha) Bharti Niyam, 1990 and Chhattisgarh Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003 according to which the criteria from the post of professor to principal is merit-cum–seniority. By promotion dated 10.08.2007 the petitioners have been given seniority from 2006. Therefore, it is not reflected that petitioners are in any disadvantaged position because of the promotion given to the private respondents.

As such, I am not inclined to adjudicate these writ petitions any further. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed off. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to agitate afresh if their rights including promotional avenues or any other service conditions have been adversely affected due to subsequent DPC and granting promotion to the private respondents though from the same date.”

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed.