Shraddha Singh (Mathew) v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5059 of 2021

1. Shraddha Singh (Mathew) W/o Shaji Mathew Aged About 58 Years R/o Mukti Dham Chow, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Currently Working As Assistant Director/ Superintendent, District Rehabilitation Center, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Women And Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Director Department Of Women And Social Welfare, Indarawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mrs. Astha Shukla, Advocate.

For State :

Mr. Amrito Das, Addl. A.G. along with Ms. Abhyunnati Singh, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 22.09.2021

1. The limited grievance that the petitioner has in the present writ petition is the inaction on the part of the respondents in not holding a DPC for promotion from the post of Assistant Directior to the post of Dy. Director for last couple of years.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner became entitled for promotion in the year 2019 when the last DPC was convened. However, thereafter in-spite of the fact that there are a large number of vacancies on the promotional posts still available, the respondents till date have not convened a DPC.

3. Counsel for the petitioner referred to Rule 13 (2) of the Chhattisgarh

Panchayat and Social Welfare (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules 2008 and 6(4) of the Chhattisgarh Promotion Rules 2003, whereby it has been specifically envisaged that the Department should make all efforts in convening the DPC regularly, if not, at least once a year. While convening a DPC, the respondents should also take note of the anticipatory vacancies that would have arisen in the said years. In the instant case there are clear vacancies available in the department but only on account of the DPC not been convened, the petitioner is being deprived and denied of her claim of consideration for promotion.

4. Considering the limited grievance that the petitioner has and also taking note of the specific rule/provision which has been mentioned in the preceding paragraph, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending by admitting the same, rather ends of justice would meet, if the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents No. 1 & 2 to take all necessary steps in ensuring that the requirement of the Rules 13 (2) of the Rules of 2008 and Rules 6 (4) of the Rules of 2003 at the earliest preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5. It is also pointed out that the State Government themselves had issued a circular on 15.01.2021 in-respect-of the filling up of vacant posts by initiating promotion process. The respondents should also take an appropriate decision keeping in mind the said circular dated 15.01.2021.

6. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge J/-