The High Court of Chhattisgarh has ruled that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) is empowered to prescribe a minimum benchmark based on Annual Confidential Report (ACR) grading for promotions made on the basis of “seniority-cum-fitness.”
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, answered a reference made by a learned Single Judge regarding the correct interpretation of the Chhattisgarh Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2003. The Court held that the view taken in the case of Prahalad Singh Gunwan is correct, thereby affirming that assessing suitability through benchmarks is consistent with statutory rules.
The reference arose from a writ petition filed by Rukam Singh Tomar, a Senior Horticulture Development Officer, who challenged his supersession by a junior officer, Raghav Swarup Verma, for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Horticulture).
During the hearing, a conflict was noted between two previous Single Bench decisions:
- Harikrishna Patel v. State of C.G. (2025): Held that for “seniority-cum-fitness,” no minimum benchmark could be prescribed by the DPC, and promotion should be solely on seniority provided there are no adverse remarks.
- Prahalad Singh Gunwan v. State of C.G. (2019): Held that the DPC was empowered to prescribe a minimum benchmark based on ACR grading.
The Division Bench was tasked with determining which view correctly interpreted Rule 4(1) and Rule 6(5) of the Promotion Rules, 2003.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Rukam Singh Tomar, was listed at Serial No. 19 in the gradation list of Senior Horticulture Development Officers as of April 1, 2019. Respondent No. 3, Raghav Swarup Verma, was at Serial No. 20. Despite being senior, the petitioner was superseded in the DPC meeting held on June 24, 2020.
The State argued that the criteria for promotion was “seniority-cum-merit” based on the evaluation of ACRs of the preceding five years. The DPC had formulated a benchmark requiring a minimum grading of “Good” (10 marks) in the last five years, with no “D” grading and no adverse remarks. The petitioner was graded “C” and thus found unfit.
The petitioner contended that since the criteria was “seniority-cum-fitness” and he had no adverse remarks or pending inquiries, he could not be superseded.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, writing for the Bench, analyzed the Chhattisgarh Horticulture (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2013, and the Chhattisgarh Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2003.
Statutory Provisions:
- Rule 4 of 2003 Rules: Promotion from Class II to Class I (or higher pay scale of Class II) is based on “seniority subject to fitness.”
- Rule 6(5) of 2003 Rules: Mandates that the DPC “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 for 5 preceding years.”
Distinguishing Precedents: The Court observed that the decision in Harikrishna Patel relied on Rajendra Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh, which involved promotion proceedings from 2002, prior to the enactment of the 2003 Rules. In contrast, Prahalad Singh Gunwan dealt with proceedings under the 2003 Rules, where the DPC had explicitly fixed benchmarks (minimum ‘Good’ grade).
The Court stated:
“If Rule 4 of the Rules of 2003 is read conjointly with sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2003, it is clear that even if an employee fulfills basis of promotion i.e. seniority subject to fitness, then also the Departmental Promotion Committee has jurisdiction to assess suitability of the public servant for promotion and the word used under sub-rule (5) of Rule 6 is ‘shall’.”
Concept of Suitability: Relying on Supreme Court judgments including Union of India v. Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan and Union of India v. Major General Manomoy Ganguly, the Court emphasized that “fitness” and “suitability” involve assessing whether a candidate can discharge the duties of the post.
The Bench observed:
“Suitability of a candidate, as assessed by the DPC, is that candidate must have track record of service of preceding five years with grade ‘Good’, no grading of ‘D’ and no adverse remarks. The benchmark, which is fixed by DPC, prima facie is to assess the suitability of the candidates to hold post and is in consonance with statutory Rules of 2003…”
Conclusion and Decision
The Division Bench concluded that the DPC has the statutory power under Rule 6(5) of the 2003 Rules to assess suitability and set benchmarks. Consequently, the Court answered the reference by declaring that the view taken in Prahalad Singh Gunwan is correct.
The matter has been directed to be listed before the appropriate roster for decision on merits.
Case Details
Case Title: Rukam Singh Tomar v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Case No.: WPS No. 3800 of 2020
Coram: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
