Shiv Kumar Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 May, 2026

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Shiv Kumar Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 May, 2026

Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu

2026:CGHC:20574
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Reserved for Order On : 27.03.2026
Order Passed On : 01/05/2026
Order Uploaded On : 01/05/2026

WPS No. 1572 of 2024

1 - Shiv Kumar Verma S/o Shri Jageshwar Prasad Verma Aged About 53
Years Working And Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Bartori,
Block-Tilda, Dist.- Raipur, C.G.

2 - Suresh Kumar Verma S/o Shri Mant Ram Verma Aged About 52 Years
Working And Posted As Head Master At Govt. Naveen Primary School
Sarkhi, Block-Abhanpur, Dist.- Raipur, C.G.

3 - Rajesh Kumar Shaning S/o Late Shri Ayodhya Prasad Vishwakarma Aged
About 53 Years Working And Posted As Head Master At Govt. Naveen
Primary School Sursabandha, Block-Fingeshwar, Dist.- Gariyaband, C.G.

4 - Ishwari Prasad Sharma S/o Late Shri Gaind Lal Sharma Aged About 53
Years Working And Posted As Head Master At Govt. Naveen Primary School
BALRAM Subhash Ward Bhatapara, Block-Bhatapara, Dist.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara,
PRASAD
DEWANGAN
C.G.
Digitally signed
by BALRAM
PRASAD
DEWANGAN

5 - Manoj Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Deo Lal Sahu Aged About 50 Years Working
And Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Julum, Block-
Abhanpur, Dist.- Raipur, C.G.

6 - Sanjay Kumar Verma S/o Late Shri Laxman Singh Verma Aged About 53
Years Working And Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Tildadih,
Block-Tilda, Dist.- Raipur, C.G.
2

7 - Ravi Kant Patel S/o Shri Arun Kant Patel Aged About 54 Years Working
And Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Kesada, Block-Simga,
Dist.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G.

8 - Manharan Lal Verma S/o Shri Chowa Ram Verma Aged About 53 Years
Working And Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Kesada Darri
Para, Block-Simga, Dist.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G.

9 - Prabhat Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Nammu Ram Yadav Aged About 53
Years Working And Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School
Sahaspur, Block-Fingeshwar, Dist.- Gariyaband, C.G.

10 - Smt. Indu Mahant Manikpuri W/o Shri Ram Manikpuri Aged About 50
Years Working And Posted As Head Master At Govt. Naveen Primary School
Ayoydhya Nagar (Changora Bhatha), Block-Dharsiwa, Dist.- Raipur, C.G.

11 - Narendra Kumar Verma S/o Shri Itwari Ram Verma Aged About 54 Years
Working And Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Bahesar,
Block-Tilda, Dist.- Raipur, C.G.

12 - Smt. Savita Verma W/o Shri Puran Lal Verma Aged About 52 Years
Working And Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Hathbandh,
Block-Simga, Dist.- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G.
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of
School Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,
Dist. Raipur, C.G.

2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Department Of School
Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,
Raipur, C.G.
--- Respondent(s)

3 WPS No. 5817 of 2024

1 - Smt. Damyanti Verma W/o Dr. K.K. Verma Aged About 47 Years Working And Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Khamhardih District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Shri Brajesh Mishra S/o Shrikant Mishra Aged About 55 Years Working And Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Kavitanagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3 - Smt. Sapna Dewangan W/o M.S. Dewangan Aged About 46 Years Working And Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Guru Ghasidas Nagar, Gudiyari, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Meera Shriwas W/o R.K. Shriwas Aged About 49 Years Working And Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Kantathih, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

5 - Smt. Bhavna Sharma W/o Lalit Kumar Sharma Aged About 48 Years Working And Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School S. P.A. Sarra, Palari, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Vimla Sajivan W/o Manoj Kumar Sjivan Aged About 51 Years Working And Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Thakurdev Para, Uparwara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Smt. Manisha Gouraha W/o Ashish Gouraha Aged About 49 Years Working And Posted As Head Master At Govt. Primary School Dharampura, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Department Of School Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Block- C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate For Respondents/State `: Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional A.G. with Ms. Shailja Shukla, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu CAV Order

1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved, both petitions are being heard and decided by this common order.

2. Petitioners have filed these writ petitions alleging inaction against respondents in not completing proceedings of promotion from the post of Headmaster Primary School to the Lecturer, which was initiated and in furtherance of which meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (in short "DPC") was convened on 01.01.2022.

3. Facts relevant for disposal of these writ petitions are that petitioners are working on the post of Headmaster Primary School. Respondents authorities have initiated proceedings for promotion on the post of Lecturer from eligible Headmaster Primary School. Petitioners being in zone of consideration, were considered for their promotion by Departmental Promotion Committee (In short 'DPC') in its meeting convened on 01.01.2022. After meeting of DPC, some of the teachers have filed writ petition bearing WPS No.502 of 2022, which came up for hearing on 31.01.2022 and upon hearing the arguments by the 5 learned counsel for petitioners therein, interim order of not making promotion to the post of Lecturer and Headmaster Middle School under the provisions of Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Education & Administrative Cadre) Promotion Rules, 2019 (In short 'the Rules, 2019') was passed. WPS No. 502 of 2022 along with other batch of writ petitions, came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court and all the writ petitions were disposed of vide judgment dated 09.03.2023. Writ petition in which interim relief was granted i.e. WPS No. 502 of 2022 came to be dismissed while some of the writ petitions bearing WPS No. 3286 of 2021, WPS 3432 of 2021, WPS 3437 of 2021, WPS 4603 of 2021, WPS 3441 of 2021 were allowed in part, in which the challenge was to the exception appended to Rule 15 (1) of the Rules, 2019 on the ground that it is discriminatory and ultra vires to the Constitution of India. After final disposal of writ petitions, the Headmasters (petitioner's herein) submitted application/ representation before respondents that the proceedings of promotion to the post of Lecturer and Headmaster initiated by DPC dated 01.01.2022 be concluded. The claim/representation submitted was rejected vide order dated 01.05.2024.

4. Petitioners in WPS No.1572 of 2024 have filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :-

10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire records of the case for its kind perusal.

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and direct the respondent No.1 & 2 to issue appropriate promotion 6 orders in favour of the petitioners in view of the DPC conducted on 01.01.2022.

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and direct the respondent No.1 & 2 to grant proper seniority to the petitioners after issuance of promotion orders in view of the DPC conducted on 01.01.2022.

10.4 That, any other relief (s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner."

5. Petitioners in WPS No.5817 of 2024 have filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :-

10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire records of the case for its kind perusal.

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and quash/set-

aside the impugned order dated 01.05.2024 issued by respondent No.2.

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and direct the Respondent 2, to pass the appropriate promotion orders in favour of the petitioners in view of the DPC conducted on 01.01.2022.

10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and direct the respondent No. 2 to grant proper seniority to the petitioners after issuance of promotion orders in view of the DPC conducted on 01.01.2022.

10.4 That, any other relief (s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner."

6. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners were in zone of consideration for promotion and their names were considered for promotion on the post of Lecturer by the DPC in its meeting dated 01.01.2022, therefore, respondents were under obligation to complete the proceedings of promotion by passing an order of promotion on the recommendation made by the DPC, upon decision on earlier writ petition filed by some employees. He also contended that after disposal of the writ petition, petitioners have made representation before the authorities on 13.03.2023 and thereafter, some of the Headmasters Primary School have filed WPS No. 8944 of 2023, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents authorities to decide the claim of petitioners therein in view of the DPC meeting convened on 01.01.2022 within the specified time frame as mentioned therein. It is contended that in compliance of the order dated 25.01.2024 passed in WPS No. 8944 of 2023 respondent-Directorate of Public Instructions issued order on 28.03.2024 rejected the representation only considering finding of WPS No.502 of 2022. Some aggrieved person again submitted representation, which was rejected. Respondent authority had not considered and decided the issue of granting promotion to the Headmaster Primary School to the post of Lecturer based on recommendation of promotion made by DPC in its meeting dated 01.01.2022, Directorate of Public Instruction issued an amended order dated 01.05.2024 by which claim of petitioners was rejected stating that validity period expired. It is further contended that in the affidavit dated 03.05.2024/06.05.2024, it only mentions that the validity period of the recommendation made by the DPC for promotion in its meeting dated 01.01.2022 expired by the end of 31.12.2022. 8

7. Learned counsel for petitioners further argued that both the grounds raised in the affidavit as also in the reply is having no legs to stand. Recommendation made by the DPC in its meeting dated 01.01.2022 could not be finalized by passing order of promotion in favour of suitable candidate like petitioners only because there was an interim order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in one another petition. The act of Court shall prejudice no one. Petitioners are protected under maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit. Petitioners having been considered for promotion, found suitable for their promotion as per rules, by DPC, therefore, in the facts of the case, where non-issuance of order of promotion is only because of an interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, they cannot be made to suffer adversely. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision in case of Nand Kumar Tomar & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine MP 388, in case of Harsimran Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 2600. Referring to the decision in case of State of U.P. Through : Secretary & Ors Vs. Prem Chopra, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 378. He further submitted that technical objections like limitations or procedural expiry will not defeat the substantive rights where the delay is occasioned due to legal proceedings. Action on the part of the respondents in not passing order based on the recommendation made by the DPC dated 01.01.2022 is highly arbitrary and is in violation of the administrative instructions issued by the State Government dated 16.02.2025. The delay in not passing order on recommendation made by DPC on 01.01.2022 till 31.01.2022 can be only said to be an administrative delay as the respondents 9 have not proceeded further by virtue of interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Reliance placed by the respondents under Rule 18 (5) of the Rules, 2019 is misplaced in the facts of the case. Counsel for petitioner further submits that petitioners in WPS No.5817 of 2024 are also Headmaster Primary School and have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the Director Public Instructions pursuant to the direction issued by the High Court in WPS No.8944 of 2023 and rejected their claim arbitrarily mentioning that by virtue of Rule 18 (5) of the Rules, 2019, the recommendation made by the DPC on 01.01.2022 had expired on 31.12.2022.

8. Learned counsel for respondents/State submits that one of the petitioner herein i.e. Ravi Kant Patel (Petitioner No.7 in WPS No. 1572 of 2024) was petitioner in the writ petition bearing WPS No.502 of 2022, wherein an interim order of stay was passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. DPC was convened on 01.01.2022. Proceedings of DPC could not be finalized by passing an order of promotion in favour of Teachers/Headmasters, whose names were recommended for promotion, till 31.01.2022 i.e. the validity period prescribed under Rule 18 (5) of the Rules, 2019. The validity period of list for promotion of Headmaster Primary School and Teacher to Lecturer came to be expired after the cutoff dates as provided under the Rules, 2019 and hence, no relief as prayed for by petitioners can be granted. Learned State counsel read over the provisions under Rule 18 (5) of the Rules, 2019 in support of his contention. He also argued that proceedings for fresh promotion on the post of Lecturer has been initiated in the year 2024 and hence, also earlier 10 proceedings of promotion by virtue of expiry of validity period of list and initiation of subsequent proceedings for promotion has lapsed and no order of promotion can be passed on the proceedings of DPC dated 01.01.2022. It is also contended that as of now the amended promotion rules governing the services of petitioners came into force w.e.f. 13.02.2026 and the existing rules of promotion is in the name of Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2026 (In short 'the Rules, 2026'), therefore, also no orders of promotion as of now can be passed under the old Rules of 2019. While disposing of batch of writ petitions, Division Bench of this Court has not directed to pass order of promotion pursuant to DPC dated 01.01.2022 as recommendation made by DPC on 01.01.2022 is not finalized and not concluded, no orders for promotion can be passed more so when the Rules, 2019 under which proceeding of promotion was initiated stood repealed by coming into force of the new rules i.e. Rules of 2026.

9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.

10. Short question involved in this case are that whether petitioners, who were considered for promotion on the post of Lecturer by DPC held on 01.01.2022 and recommended their names for promotion can be deprived from their promotion only on the ground that validity period of list of recommended eligible employees expired on 31.12.2022 because of non-finalization of the proceedings of promotion based on the recommended made by the DPC, which was due to interim order 11 passed by the High Court in one of the writ petition bearing WPS No.502 of 2022.

11. It is the case of petitioners, they are holding the post of Headmaster Primary School were, considered for their promotion by DPC in its meeting dated 01.01.2022 finding them to be in zone of consideration and eligible for promotion. The proceedings of DPC dated 01.01.2022 was not challenged by any of the employees and in the batch of writ petitions, decided by the Division Bench of this Court, there is no order interdicting the meeting of the DPC dated 01.01.2022, therefore, the proceedings of DPC meeting dated 01.01.2022 was a valid proceedings. In reply filed by the State/respondents only one ground has been taken for not issuing the order of promotion based on the recommendation of DPC and defending the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the Director Public Instructions rejecting the claim of petitioners in WPS No.5817 of 2024 pursuant to the direction issued by the High Court in WPS No. 8944 of 2023 in their favour, that the validity period of recommendation made by the DPC dated 01.01.2022 expired on 31.12.2022.

12. In WPS No. 502 of 2022 in which one of the petitioner herein i.e. Ravi Kant Patel being petitioner had filed writ petition challenging the notification dated 31.12.2021 and letter dated 07.01.2022 issued by Divisional Joint Director Education. Interim order passed by the High Court on 31.01.2022 in that case is extracted below for ready reference :-

"Till the next date fixed, no promotion to the post of Lecturer and Headmaster in the Middle Schools shall be 12 made under the provisions of Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Education & Administrative Cadre) Promotion Rules, 2019."

13. The reason for non-finalization of proceedings of promotion to the post of Lecturer on recommendation made by the DPC dated 01.01.2022 was, in WPS No.502 of 2012, interim order, which continued till decision of the case along with other writ petitions on 09.03.2023. Writ Petition (S) No. 502 of 2022, in which, interim order was passed, came to be dismissed. In some of the writ petitions, which were allowed in part, challenge was made to the explanation to the Rule 15 (1) of the Rules, 2019, which is with regard to consideration of the seniority of the Headmaster Middle School and Lecturer for their promotion on the post of Principal, which was declared to be ultra vires to the Constitution, however, the said part of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment dated 09.03.2023 has not affected in any manner to the promotion proceedings initiated and the recommendations made by the DPC dated 01.01.2022 as it being the proceedings for promotion of Teachers and Headmaster Primary School to the post of Lecturers.

14. In case at hand, promotion order of petitioners could not be issued only because of interim order passed by the Division Bench of High Court, therefore, in the facts of the case, when once, writ petition is decided and not interfered with the proceedings of the DPC dated 01.01.2022, dismissing the very writ petition, in which, interim order was granted, petitioners, who were considered for promotion by the said DPC dated 01.01.2022, cannot be made to suffer. They should be 13 resorted to the position they would have occupied if there would had been no interim order.

15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board, (1997) 5 SCC 772 has held that an order of stay, granted during pendency of writ petition/suit or other proceedings comes to an end with dismissal of substantive proceeding and that it is the duty of the Court in such a case to put the parties in the same position they would have been but for the interim orders of the Court and held as under :-

"11. ..............It is equally well settled that an order of stay granted pending disposal of a writ petition/suit or other proceeding, comes to an end with the dismissal of the substantive proceeding and that it is the duty of the court in such a case to put the parties in the same position they would have been but for the interim orders of the court. Any other view would result in the act or order of the court prejudicing a party (Board in this case) for no fault of its and would also mean rewarding a writ petitioner in spite of his failure. We do not think that any such unjust consequence can be countenanced by the courts..........".

16. High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dashrath Singh, reported in 1992 SCC OnLine MP 69 while considering the effect of the order passed by the authorities in case of Commissioner Workmen Compensation has observed thus :-

"17. In fact, it is a case where the workman has suffered for the mistake of Commissioner, Indore, who did not act in accordance with rule 22, which clearly lays down a 14 procedure to deal with such applications, in the manner prescribed, instead of dismissing the application for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, for the act or mistake of the Commissioner, Indore, the workman should not be made to suffer, as there is no higher principle for the guidance of the court than the one that no act of court should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake or fault of the court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake. This is aptly summed up in the maxim, actus curiae neminem gravabit. [See Jang Singh v. Brijlal, AIR 1966 SC 1631 and Atmaram v. Ishwarsingh, (1988) 4 SCC 284]."

17. Further the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Nand Kumar Tomar (Supra), while considering non-issuance of final order in the proceedings of appointment due to operation of stay order has observed thus :-

"5. It is no more in dispute that the appointment letters of petitioners were ready on 12-2-1988 and they were likely to be appointed from this date. It is also no more in dispute that on account of stay order passed in T.A. No. 3350/88 appointment letters could not be issued. In this view of the matter, the fate of this case would rest on the maxim Actus curiae neminem gravabit. Had there been no stay order, the petitioners would have been appointed on 12-2-1988. This fact cannot be marginalized and blinked away that all the petitions filed by LDTs were dismissed and later on, when petitioners. Filed O.A. No. 439/92, the respondents gave appointment to them in compliance to the order passed by Tribunal dated 11-6- 1992. In the said order, it has been observed by Tribunal that:--

"No person can be made to suffer by wrong orders passed by the Courts. Had the stay order not been passed the applicants would have secured their appointment orders on 12-2-1988. This could not be done on account of stay granted by the Tribunal."

I am in full agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that Court's action or inaction should not prejudice any party and the above quoted maxim is fully applicable in the present factual scenario.........."

18. High Court of Punjab & Haryana in case of Harsimran Kaur (supra), while relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus :-

"9. The age old maxim of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit, by way of literal translation, means "an act of the Court shall prejudice no one". This principle, in essence, embodies the cardinal principle that no litigant should suffer due to an error or lapse on the part of the Court. At this juncture, it would be germane to refer to the relevant case law(s) which has delved into this principle, which read thus:

(i) A three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled as Jang Singh v. Brij Lal, AIR 1966 SC 1631 has held as under:

"6. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx. There is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of Courts should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake. This is aptly summed up in the maxim:

"Actus curiae neminem gravabit". xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

8. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx. In view of the mistake of the Court which needs to be righted the parties are relegated to the position they occupied on January 6, 1958, when the error was committed by the Court which error is being rectified by us nunc pro tunc."

(ii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb, (1999) 4 SCC 396 :

AIR 1999 SC 2089, has held as under:

"8. In our opinion a tribunal or a court may recall an order earlier made by it if (i) the proceedings culminating into an order suffer from the inherent lack of jurisdiction and such lack of jurisdiction is patent,

(ii) there exists fraud or collusion in obtaining the judgment, (iii) there has been a mistake of the court prejudicing a party or (iv) a judgment was rendered in ignorance of the fact that a necessary party had not been served at all or had died and the estate was not represented. The power to recall a judgment will not be exercised when the ground for reopening the proceedings or vacating the judgment was available to be pleaded in the original action but was not done or where a proper remedy in some other proceeding such as by way of appeal or revision was available but was not availed. The right to seek vacation of a judgment may be lost by waiver, estoppel or acquiescence."

(iii) Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled as Bhupinder Singh v. Unitech Limited, 2023 LiveLaw(SC) 263 = Neutral Citation No. 2023 INSC 283, been held as under:

"5.2 As per the settled position of law, the act of the Court shall prejudice no one and in such a fact situation, the Court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the Court. The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit shall be applicable. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx."

(iv) A three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Prabhjit Singh Soni, 2024 INSC 102, has reiterated the ratio decidendi in the case of Budhia Swain (supra) and has held as under:

"48. The law which emerges from the decisions above is that a Tribunal or a Court is invested with such ancillary or incidental powers as may be necessary to discharge its functions effectively for the purpose of doing justice between the parties and, in absence of a statutory prohibition, in an appropriate case, it can recall its order in exercise of such ancillary or incidental powers."

(v) More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zaid Sheikh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 353; while considering the application of the principle of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit, in the realm of provisional admission to an educational degree course by an interim Court order, has held as under:

"8. Though, the interim order granted by the High Court on 30.10.2012 recorded that the appellant would not be entitled to claim equities, the fact that he was permitted to complete the entire course and had also finished part of his mandatory internship ought not to have been brushed aside lightly. Be it noted that the appellant had put in nearly 6 years by then in pursuing B.A.M.S. Degree Course and the end result of the High Court's order was to 18 decimate his entire labour of all those years. An act of the Court should, ordinarily, not prejudice anyone (Actus curiae neminem gravabit). This is a fundamental principle of justice, but it was disregarded by the High Court while considering the case of the appellant. In any event, the appellant's so-called ineligibility, which was not essential in the context of the course that he had taken, was cured by him thereafter owing to the liberty given by the College itself while provisionally admitting him to the course in September, 2012. Given these peculiar facts, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case for interference so that the appellant is not left out in the cold after completing almost the entire course."

9.1. The principle of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit; when perused in light of the dicta of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jang Singh (supra) and Bhupinder Singh (supra) clearly exhibit that there is no higher principle for the guidance of the Courts than the one that no act of the Courts should harm a litigant and that it is the bounden duty of the Courts to see to it that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court then such a person should be restored to the position that the person would have occupied but for that mistake. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Budhia Swain (supra), which has been reiterated in three Judges Bench judgment of Prabhjit Singh Soni (supra), has categorically held that the Court is entitled as also duty bound to recall an order, to the extent, that there had been a mistake of the Court which has caused prejudice to the litigant. Accordingly, it is an inexorable posit that this principle is founded upon the justice and good sense which serves 19 a safe and certain guidance for the administration of law, as also of the justice.

In the hallowed halls of justice, it is a cardinal principle that no litigant ought to suffer a detriment owing to the vicissitudes of judicial delay. While the machinery of justice is designed to function with diligence and dispatch, practical realities -- such as an inundated docket, administrative constraints, or systemic inertia -- may, on occasion, impede the timely adjudication of disputes. In such instances, where the delay in the resolution of the lis is attributable to no fault of the litigant, the Court must tread with circumspection to ensure that justice is not only done but manifestly seen to be done. It is here that the enduring legal maxim, namely, actus curiae neminem gravabit assumes paramount importance. This venerable precept enshrines the sacrosanct doctrine that no party should suffer because of the fault or delay of the Court. Where judicial proceedings have been protracted not by the inaction or negligence of a litigant, but rather due to institutional delays beyond the party's control, the judiciary ought to adopt a corrective, rather than punitive stance.

To put it differently, for instance, an interim relief is granted by a writ Court in favour of a litigant -- be it in the form of a stay order, an injunction, or the temporary enjoyment of a right or entitlement -- pending final adjudication. If, owing to systemic delays, the final determination of the matter is deferred over an inordinate length of time, the litigant must not, upon disposal, be divested of the benefit that had accrued during the interregnum. To do so would tantamount to a grave miscarriage of justice and an unwarranted forfeiture of rights, lawfully bestowed during the pendency of the matter. The writ Courts are not merely 20 passive arbiters but active guardian of equitable dispensation. It is duty-bound to obviate the possibility of a litigant being rendered remediless on account of procedural inertia.

19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup Saroj, (2000) 3 SCC 699 while considering the issue of expiry of validity period of panel/select list during the period of stay operating by virtue of order of Court, has observed thus :-

"10. Similarly, the plea that a list of selected candidates for appointment to the State services remains valid for a period of one year only is primarily a question depending on facts and yet the plea was not raised before the High Court. Secondly, we find that the select list was finalised in the month of November 1996 and the writ petition was filed by the respondent in the month of October 1997, i.e., before the expiry of one year from the date of the list. Merely because a period of one year has elapsed during the pendency of litigation, we cannot decline to grant the relief to which the respondent has been found entitled by the High Court. We may place on record that during the course of hearing of the SLP before this Court, on 29-9- 1999 we had directed the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P. to bring on record on affidavit the status of present recruitment of the judicial officers and the present vacancy position in the subordinate judiciary. In the affidavit of the Joint Secretary, Department of Appointment, State Government, Uttar Pradesh sworn in on 4-11-1999 and filed before this Court it is stated that as on 14-10-1999 there were 231 vacancies existing in the cadre of Munsif Magistrates (now Civil Judge, Junior Division/Judicial Magistrates). That being the factual position we see no reason why the direction made by the 21 High Court should be upset in an appeal preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh."

20. In the recent decision, Hon'ble Supreme court in case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Vs. Yati Jain & Ors., Neutral Citation : 2026 INSC 64 and other connected matters, following the decision in case of Ram Swarup Saroj (supra) has observed thus :-

"116. ...........It requires no emphasis that if a litigant approaches the writ court with a grievance of not being offered appointment from a panel when such panel is alive and if the same (panel) expires during the time the writ petition is pending, that is a situation over which the litigant cannot have any control; and, he cannot be put to a disadvantage. The right to relief must relate back to the date the litigant entered the portals of the writ court, if the litigant satisfies such court that he has been illegally denied an appointment; and, in such a case, it is open to the court to make such order that the justice of the case demands and to set things right............"

21. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in afore mentioned decisions as also the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Punjab and Haryana I am of the considered view that writ petition filed earlier bearing WPS No. 502 of 2022 was filed within the validity period of the list of the candidates recommended by the DPC. Writ petition filed by petitioner therein came to be decided after the period of expiry of the validity period. Stay granted in the said writ petition was operative for the entire validity period, therefore, petitioners herein cannot be made to suffer because the respondents under the interim order of High Court could not pass final order of promotion in favour of petitioners herein, 22 pursuant to the recommendation made by DPC, therefore, I am of the considered view that petitioners are entitled for the relief as claimed for in writ petitions for a direction to the respondents authorities to conclude the proceedings of promotion pursuant to the recommendation made by the DPC dated 01.01.2022.

22. So far as the submission of learned counsel for respondents/State that by virtue of repeal of the Rules, 2019 from the date when new Rules of 2006 came into force is concerned, action taken under the rules so repealed has been saved under proviso to Rule 22 of the Rules, 2026 which reads as under :-

"Provided that any order made or action taken under the rules so repealed shall be deemed to have been made or taken under the corresponding provision of these rules."

23. Therefore, submission made by learned counsel for respondents that no order can be passed on the earlier proceedings of the DPC, which was under the Rules, 2019, is not sustainable and is repelled.

24. For the foregoing discussions, both the writ petitions are allowed.

Order dated 01.05.2024 passed by Directorate of Public Instruction is quashed. Respondents are directed to conclude the proceedings of promotion based on the recommendation made by the DPC dated 01.01.2022 and to pass an order of promotion considering the recommendations of DPC dated 01.01.2022 in accordance with the law expeditiously preferably within further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of order.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court