Tareshwar Nath Keshri vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Since all the writ petitions arise out of the departmental exercise relating to preparation of seniority/eligibility lists and consequential promotion in the Police Department and involve overlapping questions of fact and law, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts and pleadings of WPS No.4364/2026 are being referred.

(a) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are serving as Constables in District Korba and have rendered approximately 16–17 years of service, but have not been considered for promotion to the post of Head Constable on account of the manner in which the seniority/gradation list has been prepared by the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioners had specifically raised objections to the seniority/gradation list prepared for the purpose of the DPC-2026. However, their objections have been rejected without dealing with the statutory provisions, the nature of transfer of the private respondents and the specific objections raised by the petitioners. According to learned counsel, the impugned order is thus non-speaking and does not disclose any proper consideration of the objections.

Learned counsel further submits that the respondents have placed certain employees who were transferred from other districts in the seniority list of District Korba on the basis of their original date of appointment, thereby overlooking the statutory scheme governing determination of seniority upon transfer. It is argued that employees who came to District Korba by transfer, particularly those who were transferred on their own request, could not have been placed above the petitioners in the cadre of District Korba without examining the consequences of such transfer under the applicable statutory rules. It is further submitted that the earlier SOP dated 06.08.2021, on the basis of which the earlier gradation list had been prepared, has already lost its efficacy, pursuant to the order dated 13.12.2024 passed in WPS No.6022 of 2021 & other connected matters, wherein this Court quashed the SOP dated 06.08.2021 with liberty to the authorities to frame new SOP in accordance with Section 51(2) of the C.G. Police Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Act, 2007’) and Article 309 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the same cannot override the statutory Rule 16A of the Chhattisgarh Police Executive Force, Constable (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007 (for short ‘the Rules, 2007’). The amended Rule 16A, notified on 13.02.2026, specifically governs the procedure for preparation of seniority for promotion to the posts of Head Constable and ASI and was required to be applied while undertaking the DPC-2026.

Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715, particularly the principle that where an appointment is made in accordance with the rules, seniority ordinarily has to be reckoned in accordance with the applicable statutory scheme and not on the basis of an executive arrangement contrary thereto. Reference has also been made to Santosh Kumar v. State of A.P., (2003) 5 SCC 511, as also Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, (2014) 4 SCC 583, to contend that the service position has to be determined with reference to the governing statutory rules and that executive instructions cannot be permitted to defeat the statutory scheme. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 04.05.2026 and the consequential seniority/gradation list deserve to be quashed and the respondents deserve to be directed to prepare the seniority list afresh strictly in accordance with Rule 16A, as amended on 13.02.2026, and thereafter undertake the process of promotion on that basis.

(I) Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the amended Rule 16A of the Rules, 2007. It is submitted that the State has prepared a fresh seniority/gradation list in accordance with the amended statutory provision and has taken the initial date of appointment into consideration. According to the respondents, the private respondents were appointed earlier than the petitioners and, therefore, their earlier date of appointment could not have been ignored merely because they were subsequently transferred to District Korba. It is further submitted that the District-level committee examined the cases of eligible Constables and forwarded the list to the Inspector General, Bilaspur Range. Objections were invited from the concerned employees and, after consideration thereof, the impugned order dated 04.05.2026 was passed.

Learned State counsel submits that the earlier SOP dated 06.08.2021 had already been rendered ineffective and that the department has thereafter proceeded in terms of amended Rule 16A. It is argued that the petitioners have not challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 16A and, so long as the statutory rule remains in force, the authorities are bound to implement the same. It is also submitted that the private respondents have remained members of the same State Police Service and their lien, continuity of service and original appointment have never been interrupted. Consequently, their original date of appointment could not be ignored while preparing the seniority list, therefore, the instant writ petitions may be dismissed.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 8 to 62, 64 and 65 submits that the private respondents were appointed much prior to the petitioners and have continuously remained in service. It is submitted that some of them were appointed as early as 13.06.2006, whereas the petitioners came to be appointed subsequently. It is further submitted that mere transfer of the private respondents to District Korba cannot result in wiping out their original seniority or their length of service in the State Police Service. According to the private respondents, the seniority has rightly been determined in accordance with the statutory rule on the basis of the initial date of appointment. The private respondents contend that the same statutory criteria have been applied uniformly and that no discrimination under Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution has been established. The private respondents therefore submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

The stand of respondent No.63, however, is materially different.

Respondent No.63 supports the grievance raised by the petitioners and has pleaded that the impugned order dated 04.05.2026 and the consequential fit/seniority list are contrary to Rule 16A. It is specifically contended that employees transferred from one district to another, particularly those transferred at their own request, could not have been retained in the seniority position of the transferee district without considering the statutory consequence of such transfer. Respondent No. 63 has also sought a direction for strict implementation of amended Rule 16A of the Rules, 2007 for the promotion process of the year 2026.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record.

In view of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, the controversy which arises for consideration in the present batch of petitions is essentially with regard to the manner in which seniority is required to be determined in the light of Rule 16A of the Rules, 2007, particularly in respect of Constables who have been transferred from one district to another on their own request. The petitioners contend that such employees are required to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of the transferee district from the date of their transfer, whereas the respondents seek to sustain the seniority position on the basis of their original appointment/recruitment. The consequential issue is as to whether the seniority/gradation and fit lists prepared for the purpose of promotion could validly have been prepared on such basis. Thus, the following question arises for consideration:

Whether, while preparing the seniority/gradation and consequential fit list for promotion to the post of Head Constable, the respondents were justified in retaining employees who had been transferred from one district to another on their own request at their original position in the seniority list on the basis of their initial appointment/ recruitment batch

and / or

Whether, in view of Rule 16A of the Rules, 2007, as amended, such employees were required to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of the transferee district from the date of their transfer ?

The controversy is required to be examined primarily with reference to the statutory scheme governing determination of seniority. Once the competent authority has incorporated Rule 16A in the Rules, 2007 vide amendment dated 13.2.2026, which has duly been published in the official gazette, governing the service conditions of Constables, the determination of seniority has to conform to the mandate contained therein. The respondents, while undertaking the exercise of preparation of the seniority/gradation list and the consequential fit list in the month of April, 2026, cannot adopt a criterion which has the effect of preserving the earlier seniority of an employee despite his having opted for transfer to another district, if the Rule, which has been incorporated vide amendment dated 13.02.2026, itself attaches a different consequence to such transfer. The submission of the private respondents that their original appointment, recruitment batch and uninterrupted continuity of service confer upon them a right to retain their earlier position in the seniority list cannot be accepted in that absolute form. Continuity of service is one matter; inter se seniority in the cadre of the transferee district is another. The latter has to be determined in accordance with the statutory rule governing such transfer.

Equally, the fact that the private respondents have continued to remain members of the same State Police Service does not by itself entitle them to carry their earlier position in the seniority list into the transferee district contrary to the specific statutory prescription. If an employee voluntarily seeks and obtains transfer to another district, the consequence attached to such transfer by the statutory Rules has to be given effect.

It is noteworthy to mention here that if a Government servant holding a particular post is transferred to the same post in the same cadre, the transfer will not wipe out his length of service in the post till the date of transfer and the period of service in the post before his transfer has to be taken into consideration in computing the seniority in the transferred post. But where a Government servant is so transferred on his own request, the transferred employee will have to forego his seniority till the date of transfer and will be placed at the bottom below the junior most employee in the category in the new cadre or department. This is because a Government Servant getting transferred to another unit or department for his personal considerations, cannot be permitted to disturb the seniority of the employees in the department to which he is transferred, by claiming that his service in the department from which he has been transferred, should be taken into account. This is also because a person appointed to a particular post in a cadre, should know the strength of the cadre and prospects of promotion on the basis of the seniority list prepared for the cadre and any addition from outside would disturb such prospects. The rationale in assignment of such seniority is to avoid heartburn of existing employees in the transferred cadre. (See: Dwijen Chandra Sarkar and Another Vs. Union of India & Others (1999) 2 SCC 119; K.P. Sudhakaran and Another Vs. State of Kerala and Others {(2006)5 SCC 386}; & Secretary to Government, Department of Health and Family Welfare & Another Vs. K.C. Devaki {(2025) 10 SCC 534}).

The respondents' further contention that Rule 16A was not challenged by the petitioners also does not advance their case. The petitioners are not seeking invalidation of Rule 16A. On the contrary, their grievance is that the respondents have failed to apply the extant statutory provision in its correct perspective while issuing the seniority/gradation list. A statutory rule which governs seniority cannot be displaced by an administrative interpretation or by relying upon the original date of appointment of an employee. The Court is also unable to sustain the impugned determination merely on the ground that the private respondents have already been included in the promotional exercise.

The Rules, 2007 have been framed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India with regard to the recruitment of Constable into Chhattisgarh Police Executive Force, Criminal Investigation Department, Police Training School and Government Railway Police. The said Rules have been amended vide Gazette Notification dated 13.02.2026 wherein Rule 16A has been inserted after Rule 16 with regard to the promotion process. Rule 16A (I) speaks about seniority. The same reads as under:-

16A Promotion Process:

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

Seniority:- The seniority of a person directly appointed to the post of Constable shall be determined on the basis of the order of eligibility in which his recommendation was made for appointment, irrespective of the date of assumption of charge. Persons appointed pursuant to an earlier selection shall be senior to the persons appointed pursuant to subsequent selection.

The seniority of any person promoted to the post of Head Constable under sub-clause (a) of clause (VIII) of this rule, shall be determined on the basis of selection list prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee and seniority of such persons shall be in such order in which the committee recommends him for promotion.

The posts of constable and head constable are of the district cadre. In case of transfer of constable and head constable from one District/Unit to another District/Unit from administrative point of view, seniority shall be determined as per the provision contained in rule 12 “Seniority” of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961. However, where such transfer is made on the request of employee, he shall be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of the concerned District/Unit from the date of transfer order.

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

(emphasis added)

From the aforesaid provision, it is very crystal clear that the post of Constable and the Head Constable are of the District cadre. In case of Transfer of Constable and Head Constable from one District to another District/ Unit owing to administrative exigency their seniority shall be governed as per the provision contained in Rule 12 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961. It further provides that where such transfer is made on the request of the employee, he shall be at the bottom of the seniority list of the concerned District/Unit from the date of transfer order.

Despite specific provision, which has duly been published in the official gazette on 13.2.2026, the respondent authorities published the Gradation List in the month of April, 2026 on the basis of seniority without considering the fact that the employees posted are of from the same district or transferred on administrative ground or transferred on their own request. The entire action is completely contrary to the Rules, 2007 (as amended on 13.02.2026 i.e. much prior to the publication of the impugned gradation list).

A promotional exercise founded upon an incorrectly determined seniority cannot create a vested right in favour of the persons who have benefited from such determination. The seniority position must first be correctly determined in accordance with the amended Rules and only thereafter can the consequential promotional exercise be undertaken. At the same time, the Court is not required to examine the individual suitability or comparative merit of each employee at this stage. The limited issue is the correct legal basis on which seniority is required to be determined. Once that basis is settled, the consequential exercise is required to be undertaken by the competent authority in accordance with the Rules.

In view of the above, this Court holds that the seniority/gradation list and the consequential fit list cannot be sustained to the extent they have been prepared by ignoring the statutory consequence flowing from Rule 16A in respect of employees transferred on their own request. Accordingly, the seniority/gradation list and the consequential fit list, which has been prepared after 13.2.2026, is set aside.

The respondents are directed to undertake a fresh exercise of determination of seniority in accordance with Rule 16A and thereafter redraw the seniority/gradation list and the consequential fit list in the letter and spirit of Rule 16A of the Rules, 2007 and thereafter undertake the consequential exercise for promotion.

It is clarified that the aforesaid direction does not amount to a direction for automatic promotion of any petitioner. The claim of each eligible employee shall be considered on the basis of the corrected seniority, eligibility, suitability and other conditions prescribed under the relevant rules and regulations.

As an upshot, all the writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).