Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. J.P. Benerji vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 February, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:8065
Digitally NAFR
signed by
YOGESH
YOGESH
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.02.17
16:54:00
+0530 Order Reserved on : 29.01.2026
Order Delivered on : 13.02.2026
WPS No. 2168 of 2023
Dr. J.P. Benerji S/o Gautam Das Benerji, aged about 60 years, working
in the post of Homeopathic officer in Govt. Homeopathic Hospital,
Mastoori, Bilaspur R/o Main Road, near old Somwari Bazaar Palmgarh,
Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.)
--- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health and Family
Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur,
District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Director, Indian System of medicines and homeopathy, Madhya
Pradesh, Bhopal (M.P.)
3 - Under Secretary, health and family welfare department, Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge CAV Order
1. Heard Mr. T. K. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate for the State/respondents.
2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for 2 issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to grant the benefit of promotion to the petitioner with effect from the year 1995 instead of 2015, along with all consequential service benefits including seniority and monetary benefits, as the petitioner was granted promotion belatedly in the year 2015 despite being otherwise entitled for the same since 1995 with the following relief(s):-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to give benefit of promotion to the petitioner from the year 1995 till 2015 onwards with all consequential benefits as the promotion has been given to the petitioner in the year 2015 in place of 1995.
10.2 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in favor of the petitioner may kindly be passed."
3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the petitioner is presently working on the post of Homeopathy Medical Officer and is posted in District Janjgir-Champa. He was initially appointed as Assistant Homeopathy Medical Officer on 07.11.1988 and has been continuously and regularly discharging his duties to the satisfaction of the respondents. Upon creation of the State of Chhattisgarh w.e.f. 01.11.2000, the petitioner opted to serve the newly formed State of Chhattisgarh.
3
4. It is the case of the petitioner that till the year 1993, there was no policy for promotion from the post of Assistant Medical Officer to Medical Officer. Subsequently, in the year 1994, the State Government of Madhya Pradesh amended the relevant rules and framed a promotion policy, wherein 75% of the posts of Medical Officer were required to be filled by promotion from Assistant Medical Officers having eligibility of 5 years experience subject to percentage of 60% for General Category and 40% for Reserved Categories. As per the said rules, 107 posts were to be filled by promotion. Though a DPC was held on 10.10.1994, the promotional quota of 75% was not fully filled.
5. Aggrieved thereby, Dr. Manzoor Ahmad filed an Original Application bearing No.135/1996 (Writ Petition No.23371/2003) before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, wherein vide order dated 08.08.2005, directions were issued to grant promotion to all eligible candidates falling within the promotional quota and the case of the petitioner may be considered by a review DPC from the candidates at par with 42 candidates, who were earlier promoted. In compliance thereof, a review DPC was convened, in which the petitioner was found eligible and his name was placed at Serial No. 92; however, he was not granted promotion solely on the ground that he had opted for the State of Chhattisgarh.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition(S) No. 3259/2010, which came to be dismissed vide order 4 dated 18.11.2010 on the ground that prescription of qualifications and promotion criteria falls within the domain of policy decision of the State regarding qualification for a post and the Court cannot adjudicate upon the policy decision unless it is arbitraily passed. Subsequently, the petitioner again filed Writ Petition (S) No. 173/2012 claiming promotion and consequential benefits. During the pendency of the said petition, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Homeopathy Medical Officer on 03.12.2015, whereupon the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.12.2021 with liberty to submit a representation regarding his claim.
7. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he has been promoted, he has been denied the benefit of promotion from the year 1995, to which he was otherwise legally entitled, along with all consequential benefits. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conduct of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, as the petitioner has been unjustly deprived of his rightful promotion with effect from the year 1995 along with all consequential benefits, despite the fact that similarly situated employees (Doctors), who entered service along with the petitioner in the year 1988 have already been granted such benefits. It is further submitted that although the petitioner was ultimately granted promotion in the 5 year 2015 during the pendency of WPS No. 173/2012, the same ought to have been granted from the year 1995, and on account of such inordinate delay, the petitioner has been deprived of promotional and monetary benefits for the period 1995 to 2015, to which he was otherwise legally entitled. He further submits that the petitioner is now at the fag end of his service, and denial of retrospective promotion and consequential benefits would result in grave financial prejudice, as his retiral dues and family pension would be computed on the basis of a lower pay scale, thereby causing irreparable loss. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the matter of M.S. Tandon v. State and Others, 1996 Go. Juris (Jammu & Kashmir HC) 192, to buttress his submissions.
9. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing WPS No. 3259/2010, wherein similar relief was sought. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court after due consideration, holding that prescription of qualifications, fixation of eligibility criteria and avenues of promotion fall within the exclusive domain of policy decisions of the State Government, and the same cannot be interfered with by the Court unless such policy is shown to be arbitrary, irrational or shocking to the conscience of the Court. Learned State counsel further submits that thereafter the petitioner again approached this Court by filing 6 WPS No. 173/2012, which was finally disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a suitable representation with regard to his promotion to the post of Homeopathy Medical Officer, and therefore, the petitioner cannot now seek reopening of settled issues under the guise of the present petition.
10. Learned State counsel further submits that it is a well-settled principle of service jurisprudence that promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that consideration for promotion depends upon fulfillment of the prescribed eligibility conditions as well as availability of vacancies. It is submitted that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the post of Medical Officer (Homeopathy), as he possessed only a two-year Diploma in Homeopathy, whereas the minimum essential qualification prescribed under Column 6 of Schedule-III framed under Rule 8 of the Chhattisgarh Public Health (Indian System of Medicine) Gazetted Service Recruitment Rules, 1987 mandates possession of either a five-year degree course or four-year diploma course from a recognized institution. Consequently, the petitioner was rightly excluded from consideration for promotion. It is further submitted that earlier there existed two distinct cadres of Assistant Medical Officer (Homeopathy), namely Junior Grade and Senior Grade, with different pay scales and educational qualifications. Candidates possessing the requisite qualification of five-year degree or four-year diploma were appointed as Assistant Medical Officer (Homeopathy) Senior Grade, whereas candidates like the 7 petitioner possessing only a two-year diploma were appointed as Junior Grade. Since there was no regular promotional avenue for Assistant Medical Officers, a conscious policy decision was taken by the Government of Madhya Pradesh to fill up 75% of the posts of Medical Officer (Homeopathy)--which were otherwise direct recruitment posts--by promotion from Assistant Medical Officer (Homeopathy) Senior Grade possessing the prescribed qualifications. In pursuance thereof, 42 Assistant Medical Officer (Homeopathy) Senior Grade officers were promoted in the year 1995 as they fulfilled the essential eligibility criteria under the 1987 Rules. As the petitioner admittedly did not possess the minimum qualification, he could neither be considered nor compared with the said promoted officers, and therefore, the allegation of discrimination raised by the petitioner is wholly misconceived and untenable in the eyes of law.
11. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner, in the year 2010, again filed WPS No. 3259/2010, not only claiming similar relief but also challenging the notification dated 23.07.2008 by which amendments were introduced in the Chhattisgarh Public Health (Indian System of Medicine) Gazetted Service Recruitment Rules, 1987. In the said proceedings, the answering respondents had filed a detailed reply explaining the statutory reasons for the petitioner's ineligibility for promotion. This Court, after examining the entire service framework, recorded a categorical finding that although the petitioner and other similarly situated Junior Grade 8 Assistant Medical Officers did not have a channel of promotion under the Rules, they were nevertheless granted time-bound pay scale / upgradation benefits in accordance with law. The said aspect has been specifically dealt with and affirmed by this Court in paragraph 20 of the order dated 18.11.2010 passed in WPS No. 3259/2010. He further submits that the eligibility criteria for recruitment and promotion to the post of Medical Officer (Homeopathy) has consistently been prescribed as a five-year degree course or four-year diploma course from a University, Council or Board recognized by the Central Council of Homeopathy (CCH), along with five years' experience in any recognized Government or private institution, as is evident from Column (6) of Schedule-III framed under Rule 8 of the relevant Recruitment Rules, and even after substitution of Schedule-III by way of amendment in the year 2008, there has been no change in the educational qualification so prescribed. It is further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that determination of minimum qualifications and formulation of service policy fall exclusively within the domain of the Government, and such policy decisions are not open to judicial review unless shown to be patently arbitrary or shocking to the conscience of the Court. From the return filed by the State, it is evident that Assistant Medical Officers (Homeopathy) having only a two-year diploma have not been left remediless and have been duly extended the benefit of time-scale / upgradation / time-bound scale, in accordance with 9 the applicable rules and policy, thereby negativing any allegation of discrimination or arbitrariness. At the relevant time, there existed no promotional avenues for Assistant Homeopathy Medical Officers. Subsequently, promotional avenues were created by policy decision, whereby 75% of the posts of Medical Officer (Homeopathy) were directed to be filled by promotion, and pursuant thereto, 42 officers were promoted in the year 1995. The petitioner admittedly possessed only a two-year diploma and, accordingly, was appointed as Assistant Homeopathy Medical Officer (Junior Grade). In view of the categorical distinction in cadre, qualifications and eligibility, the service of the petitioner cannot be equated or compared with that of Assistant Homeopathy Medical Officers (Senior Grade) who were granted promotion in the year 1995, as they possessed the essential qualification of a five-year degree course or four-year diploma course, which is the minimum eligibility prescribed for promotion. Therefore, the petitioner was rightly not promoted at par with those officers, and no illegality or discrimination can be attributed to the respondents in this regard.
12. It is thus submitted that the entire process has been conducted in a fair, transparent and rule-bound manner, and the petitioner has failed to place any material on record to demonstrate arbitrariness, discrimination or violation of statutory provisions. Consequently, the present petition, being vague, misconceived and devoid of any merit or substance, is liable to be dismissed. 10
13. By filing a rejoinder-affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have partly admitted the factual matrix regarding filing of the present petition, the petitioner's initial appointment in the year 1988 in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and his claim for promotion with effect from 1995 to 2015 with consequential benefits. It is submitted that after bifurcation of the State and upon the petitioner opting for the State of Chhattisgarh, the entire liability, responsibility and control over the petitioner's service stood transferred to the State of Chhattisgarh alone, and therefore the stand that the State of Madhya Pradesh is a necessary party is misconceived. He further submits that the petitioner has been deprived of his rightful promotion solely on the basis of erroneous interpretation of circulars, despite the fact that pursuant to directions issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of similarly situated co-employees, a review DPC was held wherein the petitioner was found fit and placed at Serial No. 92, yet promotion was denied. It is contended that the replies filed by the respondents are casual, evasive and without proper appreciation of the pleadings, facts and law involved. Learned counsel emphatically submits that the petitioner has a clear and subsisting cause of action under Article 226 of the Constitution, having been deprived of his legal and fundamental right to promotion and consequential benefits under the service rules. It is further submitted that the petitioner was admittedly granted promotion on 03.12.2015, which itself establishes his 11 eligibility, and therefore denial of promotion from the year 1995 is arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable, particularly when identical relief has already been granted to co-employees pursuant to orders of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. It is lastly submitted that there has been no suppression of material facts by the petitioner, who has fairly placed all relevant orders and documents on record, and therefore the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
15. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed and continued as Assistant Homeopathy Medical Officer (Junior Grade) and possessed only a two-year Diploma in Homeopathy. The eligibility criteria for recruitment and promotion to the post of Medical Officer (Homeopathy) has consistently been prescribed as a five- year degree course or four-year diploma course from any University, Council or Board recognized by the Central Council of Homeopathy (CCH), coupled with five years' experience in a recognized Government or private institution, as explicitly provided under Column (6) of Schedule-III framed under Rule 8 of the applicable Recruitment Rules. It is pertinent to note that even after the substitution of Schedule-III by way of amendment to the Rules in the year 2008, there has been no alteration whatsoever in the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the said 12 post.
16. From the foregoing discussion, it is manifestly clear that Assistant Homeopathy Medical Officers holding only a two-year diploma do not constitute a homogeneous class with those Assistant Homeopathy Medical Officers who possess the essential qualification of a five-year degree or four-year diploma course. Consequently, such Junior Grade officers cannot be treated at par with, nor equated to, those holding the requisite qualifications and belonging to the Senior Grade, who were lawfully considered and promoted against the promotional quota. Once the petitioner was found ineligible for promotion owing to lack of the prescribed qualification, no right accrued in his favour to claim parity with officers who fulfilled the statutory requirements. However, in order to obviate any financial stagnation, the petitioner and other similarly situated Junior Grade officers were extended the benefit of time-scale / upgradation / time-bound scale increase, ensuring that they were not deprived of financial progression. The said arrangement has already been judicially examined and upheld by this Court in its Division Bench judgment dated 18.11.2010, which is binding upon the petitioner and squarely governs the present controversy. In the absence of requisite qualification, the petitioner cannot be equated with officers who were validly promoted as Homeopathy Medical Officers.
17. So far as the reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment in 13 the case of M.S. Tandon (supra) is concerned, the same is of no assistance to the petitioner, as the factual matrix, service rules and eligibility conditions involved in the said case are entirely different and clearly distinguishable from those obtaining in the present case.
18. It is also relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held in catena of decisions that notional or retrospective promotion from a back date cannot be granted as a matter of course, particularly when the employee did not fulfil the requisite eligibility conditions at the relevant point of time.
19. Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512, has categorically held that no retrospective service benefits can be granted from a date when an employee was not borne in the cadre, as such action would disturb settled rights and is contrary to service jurisprudence and it was held thus:-
"19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion 14 itself. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das, wherein it was observed as follows:
"18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai10 where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab12, a three- Judge Bench observed thus:
41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below:15
'4....... There is no
fundamental right to promotion, but
an employee has only right to be
considered for promotion, when it
arises, in accordance with relevant
rules. From this perspective in our
view the conclusion of the High
Court that the gradation list
prepared by the corporation is in
violation of the right of respondent-
writ petitioner to equality enshrined
under Article 14 read with Article 16
of the Constitution, and the
respondent-writ petitioner was
unjustly denied of the same is
obviously unjustified.'
42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit
Singh v. State of Punjab, laying
emphasis on Article 14 and Article
16(1) of the Constitution of India
held that if a person who satisfies
the eligibility and the criteria for
promotion but still is not considered
for promotion, then there will be
clear violation of his/her's
fundamental right. Jagannadha
Rao, J. speaking for himself and
Anand, C.J., Venkataswami,
Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed
the same as follows in paras 22 and
27: 'Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right
to be considered for promotion a
fundamental right.
16
22. Article 14 and Article 16(1)
are closely connected. They deal
with individual rights of the person.
Article 14 demands that the 'State
shall not deny to any person
equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws'. Article 16(1)
issues a positive command that:
'there shall be equality of
opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State'. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14.
The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense "equality of opportunity" in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word "employment" being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16 (1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be "considered" for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the 17 right to be "considered" for promotion. If a person satisfies the
eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be "considered"
for promotion, which is his personal right. "Promotion" based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1).
* * * 27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.13, and followed in Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana14, and other cases, if it is intended to lay down that the right guaranteed to employees for being "considered" for promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have already stated earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to be "considered" for promotion is 18 indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.], right from 1950.' "20. In State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, it was held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others. The same view was reiterated in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India16, where it was held that when a quota is provided for, then the seniority of the employee would be reckoned from the date when the vacancy arises in the quota and not from any anterior date of promotion or subsequent date of confirmation. The said view was restated in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P., in the following words: '37. We are also of the view that no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre so as to 19 adversely affect the direct recruits appointed validly in the meantime, as decided by this Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India held that when promotion is outside the quota, seniority would be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous promotion would be regular only from the date of the vacancy within the quota and seniority shall be counted from that date and not from the date of his earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order to do justice to the promotes, it would not be proper to do injustice to the direct recruits...... 38. This Court has consistently held that no retrospective promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on retrospective basis from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre particularly when this would adversely affect the direct recruits who have been appointed validity in the meantime." (emphasis supplied)
20. In the instant case, it is evident that while respondent No. 1 was 20 recommended for promotion before his retirement, he could not assume the duties of the Chief Scientific Officer.
Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, clearly stipulates that an employee must assume the responsibilities of a higher post to draw the corresponding pay, thus, preventing posthumous or retrospective promotions in the absence of an enabling provisions."
20. In the present case, it is an admitted position on record that the petitioner did not fulfill the prescribed eligibility criteria for promotion in the year 1995. The Recruitment Rules governing the post specifically mandated possession of a five-year degree course or a four-year diploma course from a recognized University/Council along with the requisite experience, which qualification the petitioner admittedly did not possess at the relevant point of time. In absence of fulfillment of such essential eligibility conditions, the petitioner could not have been legally considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the year 1995, and therefore, no vested or accrued right for promotion came into existence in his favour at that stage.
21. The subsequent promotion granted to the petitioner vide order dated 03.12.2015 was on the basis of eligibility as it existed at the relevant time and was prospective in nature. Such promotion does not confer upon the petitioner any indefeasible or enforceable 21 right to claim retrospective or notional promotion from an earlier date when he was admittedly ineligible under the applicable service rules. It is well-settled that promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right from a back date merely because an employee has been promoted at a later stage, particularly when the foundational eligibility criteria were not satisfied at the relevant time.
22. It is also settled law that the right guaranteed to an employee under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is limited to the right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the applicable rules, and not a right to promotion itself. In the present case, since the petitioner did not fall within the zone of consideration due to lack of requisite qualification in the year 1995, the question of denial of consideration or discrimination does not arise. Grant of retrospective promotion in such circumstances would not only be contrary to the statutory Recruitment Rules but would also disturb the settled seniority and service rights of those Medical Officers who were duly promoted in accordance with law after fulfilling the prescribed qualifications.
23. In view of the foregoing facts and the settled principles of service jurisprudence, the claim raised by the petitioner seeking promotion retrospectively from the year 1995 at par with Medical Officers possessing the requisite qualifications is legally unsustainable. The writ petition, thus, lacks legal foundation, is 22 devoid of merit and substance, and no interference by this Court is warranted.
24. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh The date when the The date when the The date when the judgment is judgment is judgment is uploaded on the website reserved pronounced Operative Full 29.01.2026 13.02.2026 ------ 17.02.2026