Background Facts

The appellants were appointed as Sub Inspector (Radio) in November 2017 after qualifying the recruitment process. Their services are governed by the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2021. Under 2021 Rules, the next promotional post is Inspector (Radio) with eight years of service prescribed for promotion. The appellants contended that under Rule 6(2) of the Chhattisgarh Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003, qualifying service is to be computed from the calendar year of joining and not from actual date of joining.

It was claimed that they have completed eight years in 2024 and were eligible as on 01.01.2025. They also contended that seven posts of Inspector (Radio) were vacant and they were senior in the gradation list. Despite their eligibility, the respondents failed to convene the DPC and consider their cases. However, the DPCs were convened for other officers.

Further, their representations went not addressed. Then they filed writ petition before the Single Judge, who dismissed the petition holding that they would complete eight years in October 2025 and become eligible from 01.01.2026. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred the intra-Court appeal.

It was argued by the appellants that the Rule 6(2) of the Rules, 2003 expressly provides that 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. It was further argued that the respondents cannot rely on any departmental SOP to defeat their statutory right under the Rules of 2003, as such instructions cannot override statutory rules framed under Article 309.

It was also submitted that other wings of the Police Department have been granting the benefit of computation from the calendar year, and denial to the appellants is arbitrary and discriminatory.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondent-State that the appellants had not completed the requisite eight years as on the cut-off date of 01.01.2025, as their actual dates of joining were in November 2017 and they had completed only about seven years and one month of service. It was submitted that Rule 16 of the Rules, 2021 requires that the DPC shall consider cases of persons who on the first day of January of the relevant year, have completed the prescribed number of years of service.

It was further argued that the appellants cannot claim promotion as a matter of right merely because vacancies exist, as their right is only to be considered upon fulfillment of prescribed eligibility criteria.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that Rule 6(2) of the Rules, 2003 provides that names of only such public servants shall be considered for promotion who have completed the prescribed qualifying service. It further states that the period of qualifying service on 1st January of the relevant year shall be counted from the calendar year in which the public servant has joined the feeder cadre and not from the date of joining.

It was further observed that the rule-making authority prescribed the calendar year of joining as the starting point and excluded the actual date of joining. It was further observed that once the appellants joined in 2017, the entire calendar year 2017 is liable to be reckoned as the first year, making them complete eight years in 2024 and eligible as on 01.01.2025.

It was held by the Division Bench that the Single Judge erred by proceeding on the basis of actual dates of joining. It was further observed that Rule 16 of the Rules, 2021 requires eligibility to be examined with reference to the first day of January. Therefore the appellants were eligible as on 01.01.2025.

It was further held that the respondents' contention that the appellants had completed only seven years and one month of actual service cannot be accepted in view of the specific statutory method of computation.

With the aforesaid observations, the order of the Single Judge was set aside by the Division Bench. The respondents were directed to consider the cases of appellants for promotion treating them as having completed eight years as on 01.01.2025. Consequently, the writ appeal filed by the appellants was allowed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Om Prakash Dewangan and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another

Case No. : WA No. 944 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellants : Sourabh Sahu, Advocate

Counsel for the State : S. S. Baghel, Government Advocate