News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 52
Bilaspur, January 15, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has set aside the promotion of a senior jail officer to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, holding that the Departmental Promotion Committee failed to follow the mandatory “merit-cum-seniority” rule laid down under service regulations.
In a detailed judgment delivered on January 15, 2026, Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad allowed a writ petition filed by Amit Shandilya, Superintendent of Central Jail, Jagdalpur, who had challenged the promotion of a junior officer, S.S. Tigga, to the DIG rank in March 2023. The court found that the promotion process was mechanically driven by seniority and ignored the comparative assessment of merit required under Rule 7(9) of the Chhattisgarh Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003 52.
The dispute arose after a vacancy for the DIG (Jail) post opened following the retirement of a senior officer. A Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on February 8, 2023 considered three eligible officers, including the petitioner and the promoted officer, against a single vacancy. While all candidates met the minimum benchmark of “Very Good” Annual Confidential Reports for the preceding five years, the committee recommended Tigga solely on the basis that he was the senior-most officer.
Shandilya challenged the decision after obtaining the DPC minutes and ACR records through the Right to Information Act. He argued that his service record reflected superior merit, including multiple “Outstanding” gradings, and that the rules required a comparative evaluation of merit before seniority could be applied. His representation against the promotion was rejected by the state government on the ground that no vacancy existed, prompting the writ petition.
Rejecting the state’s defence, the High Court held that the DPC had misunderstood the law by treating all candidates as equal merely because they fell within the same grading category. The court observed that the absence of an “Outstanding” grading did not absolve the committee of its duty to conduct a comparative assessment based on overall performance, consistency, integrity and service profile.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court reiterated that under the “merit-cum-seniority” principle, merit must dominate the selection process, and seniority can only act as a tie-breaker when candidates are found to be broadly equal in merit. A straight application of seniority, the court said, defeats the purpose of the rule and renders the promotion arbitrary.
Consequently, the promotion order dated March 9, 2023, the rejection of the petitioner’s representation, and the relevant recommendations of the DPC were all quashed. The state government has been directed to reconvene the Departmental Promotion Committee and undertake a fresh, comparative and merit-based assessment of all eligible officers within four months. If found more meritorious, the petitioner is to be granted all consequential benefits.
The ruling is expected to have wider implications for promotion procedures in state services, particularly where authorities rely on seniority without recording a reasoned evaluation of merit, despite clear statutory requirements.
Case Reference : WPS No. 3033 of 2023, Amit Shandilya S/o Shri Mannu Lal Shandilya, Jagdalpur v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others; Counsels: for the petitioner, Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sunita Jain; for respondents No.1 and 2, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate; for respondent No.3, Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay; and for respondent No.4, Mr. Siddhant Tiwari.