ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs: (i) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to accept and allow this petition, so that the Petitioner may get Promotion in the interest of justice. (ii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to give instruction to Respondents No. 1 to 3 consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Registrar like the respondents No. 4 and 5 and give seniority and balance payments from the date of promotion as given in writ and release the whole balance payment till the date of Retirement of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that, the Petitioner's Joining in Education Department on 01.09.1973 and his date of Birth is 01.01.1954 and he was promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-1 on 29.01.2005. So he should be promoted on the post of Registrar from 14.06.2015. According to the general condition of service and as per the provision of the condition of S.No. 8, he is entitled to get the promotion for the post of Registrar 14.06.2015 like V.K. Pandey and Shri G.L. Namdeo. Shri V.K. Pandey joined in the education department on 17.07.1981 and his date of birth is 21.07.1957 and he was promoted on the post Assistant Grade on 29.01.2005 and promoted for the post of Registrar on 14.06.2015 by the respondents, although they are junior then the petitioner, his case should be considered for the promotion on the post of Registrar from 14.06.2015. 3. Shri G.L. Namdeo Joined in education department on 19.10.1981 and his date of birth is 04.06.1955 he was promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-1 on 29.01.2005. He was promoted for the post of Registrar on 14.06.2015 although he junior then the petitioner. According to the above information the petitioner is the Senior then V.K. Pandey and G.L. Namdeo. The Respondents ignored the seniority of the petitioner and promoted to Shri V.K. Pandey and Shri G.L. Namdeo vide order dated 14.06.2015 issued by Under Secretary, Higher Education Department without following the notification dated 16.11.2007 issued by the Deputy Secretary and the directions issued by the Respondents. The Respondents ignored the seniority of the petitioner and promoted to Shri V.K. Pandey and Shri G.L. Namdeo vide order dated 14.06.2015 issued by Under Secretary, Higher Education Department without following the notification dated 16.11.2007 issued by the Deputy Secretary and the directions issued by the Respondents. In this way the injustice prevailed with the senior most petitioner in the post of Assistant Grade-1 and he had not given promotion for the post of Registrar by above Respondents. 4. According to the order passed by this Court in WP (S) No. 224/2011 on 11.01.2013 in the matter of “Umashankar Verma v. Chief Secretary, Higher Education C.G. Govt. Raipur & other” the Respondents shall hold review D.P.C. to consider the claim of petitioner for grant of promotion on the post Accountant in the light of observation made by the court as expeditiously as possible. On the basis of the said order, review DPC was held on 06.05.2015. The Petitioner's name put in the seniority list No. 4 in place of 30 of old seniority list. The order passed by this Court in Annexure A-4 on 11.01.2013 was implemented by the Respondent No.1 and 2 after the lapse of 2 years. In this way the Respondent's No. 1 and 2 deliberately not followed the order passed in Annexure4, it shows the clear discrimination with the petitioner. This should be removed by the worthy order of this Court in the interest of justice with the Petitioner. 5. Shri V.K. Pandey and Shri V. K. Namdeo is junior then the petitioner and promoted both the person for the post of the Registrar vide order dated 24.06.2015 issued by the Under Secretary, which is also illegal, because they have not considered the petitioner's promotion for the post of Registrar being a senior employee in comparison of the above both employees. Therefore, his promotion should be considered for the post of Registrar by the precious order of this Court in the interest of justice. According to Annexure A-1 dated 01.04.2014 at Sl.No. 6 and 7. The list of Seniority as per order of this Court will get from the knowledge of their date of first appointment and also acquainted with the date of birth of the both employees. According to this seniority list, Shri V. K. Pandey first joined in the Higher Eduction Department on 17.07.1981 and his date of birth is 31.07.1957. The list of Seniority as per order of this Court will get from the knowledge of their date of first appointment and also acquainted with the date of birth of the both employees. According to this seniority list, Shri V. K. Pandey first joined in the Higher Eduction Department on 17.07.1981 and his date of birth is 31.07.1957. Shri G.L. Namdeo first appointed in the above department on 19.10.1981 and his date of birth is 04.06.1955. 6. According to this seniority list, Petitioner's first joining in the above Department is on 01.09.1973 and his date of birth is 01.01.1954. It is clearly confirmed that he is senior most then Shri Pandey and Namdeo, therefore, the discrimination done with the petitioner, shall be definitely removed by the precious order passed by this Court in favour of the above petitioner. According to the reason given in facts of the S.No.7 the petitioner is having right of promotion which is also curbed by the mistake of the above respondents. Therefore, this Court directed to the above Respondents to rectify the blunder done by them and he should be promoted for the post of Registrar from the date of 14.06.2015 and also released the whole pending salary of the Registrar from the above date, hence this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the senior most than Shri V.K. Pandey and G.K. Namdeo. According to the first date of joining in the Higher Education Department as well as on the basis of date of birth Petitioner is senior then above two employees. The Petitioner joined in the Higher Education Department on 01.09.1973 and his date of birth is 01.01.1954 while the date of Promotion on the post of Assistant Grade-I of above employees is 29.01.2005 and considered their promotion for the post of Registrar. The Petitioner is also promoted on the post of Assistant Grade on 29.01.2005 and he is Senior in first joining in the Higher Education Department and he was borne before them. According to the general conditions of service which is prepared by the Chhattisgarh Government the petitioner should be promoted for the post of Registrar prior to Shri V.K. Pandey and G.L.Namdeo because the petitioner firstly joined in Higher Education Department before joining the above employees on 01.09.1973. According to the general conditions of service which is prepared by the Chhattisgarh Government the petitioner should be promoted for the post of Registrar prior to Shri V.K. Pandey and G.L.Namdeo because the petitioner firstly joined in Higher Education Department before joining the above employees on 01.09.1973. The respondents are not followed deliberately the general condition of service, which is prepared by the State Government, therefore, so according to this ground he is entitled to get the promotion prior to above narrated employees. 8. According to the natural law of justice, the senior most person should be considered for promotion on the next higher post before junior employees. Here deliberately not given promotion to the Petitioner on the post of Registrar and given promotion to the junior employees (i.e. respondents No. 4 & 5). According to fundamental right, every citizen's right should not to be curbed in any condition. The respondents adopted autocracy attitude and view in consideration for the promotion of the petitioner for the post of Registrar and debarred and left the Petitioner to provide the privilege of the promotion for the post of Registrar and not considered his promotion from 14.06.2015. The Respondent No.3 having full idea about the vacant post of the Registrar, but deliberately not given promotion to the petitioner. Respondent No.3 was also involved in illegal activities by not considering the promotion for the post of Registrar of the Petitioner. 9. The State Public Service Commission is established by the State Government for the welfare of the employees, so that their legal right of promotion/appointment of the senior employee should be decided within time. The action of respondents is against the service conditions and rules, therefore, the respondents may be directed to consider the name of petitioner for promotion and give seniority and balance payment, from the date when his juniors were promoted. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that this petition as framed and filed by the petitioner is misconceived and has been filed without disclosing the material facts and hence, deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner was initially appointed as Farrash on 01/09/1973 in the department of Higher Education and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk on 05/01/1991. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-I on 29/01/2005. The petitioner was initially appointed as Farrash on 01/09/1973 in the department of Higher Education and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk on 05/01/1991. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-I on 29/01/2005. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as WP(S) No. 224/2011, in which the legality and validity of order dated 25/06/2009 was challenged, wherein a claim of promotion to the post of AG-I (Head Clerk) with effect from 01/09/1990 was rejected. 11. In the said writ petition, it was alleged by the petitioner that even though no adverse remark was communicated to the petitioner, but, he has wrongly been held unfit for promotion to the post of Accountant from the due date i.e. 07/03/1998 when number of juniors were promoted, on account of this, the petitioner was granted promotion belated on the post of A.G.-I (Head Clerk) with effect from 29/01/2005. Vide order dated 11/01/2013 this Court was pleased to allow the writ petition preferred by the petitioner with directions to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of Accountant as on the date when his juniors were considered and promoted with effect from 07/03/1998 and if the petitioner is found fit for promotion on the post of Accountant with effect from 07/03/1998, the respondents would be under an obligation to undertake the exercise of considering the claim of petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of A.G.-I (Head Clerk) from due date and accordingly it was directed the respondents to hold review DPC and consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion on the post of A.G.-I (Head Clerk) in the light of the observations made by this Court as expeditiously as possible. 12. In compliance of the order dated 11/01/2013 passed by this Court, a review DPC was convened on 31/08/2015 and as per the recommendation of the DPC, the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-I with effect from 29/01/2005. The post of Accountant which was earlier in existence in the set-up of the Higher Education Department, was abolished and in place of that post, the post of Assistant Grade-I was sanctioned by the order dated 29/01/2005. The post of Accountant which was earlier in existence in the set-up of the Higher Education Department, was abolished and in place of that post, the post of Assistant Grade-I was sanctioned by the order dated 29/01/2005. In the review DPC, it was also considered that since in the set-up of department of Higher Education, the post of Accountant is not in existence and in place of that post, the post of Assistant Grade-I has been sanctioned by the State Government and therefore, it was decided to give the promotion to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Grade-I with effect from 29/01/2005 i.e. the date on which the post of Assistant Grade-I is sanctioned in the set-up of the Department of Higher Education. 13. It was further considered that in case of promotion to the post of Accountant with effect from 07/03/1998 i.e. the date when the juniors were promoted to the post of Accountant, the seniority of the petitioner would be below the name of Shri G.L. Namdeo at serial no. 17 and above the name of Shri S.P. Sahu at serial no. 18 of the seniority list and accordingly the seniority of the petitioner was fixed below the name of the name of Shri G.L. Namdeo at serial no 4 and above the name of Shri S.P. Sahu at serial no. 5 of the seniority list of the post of Assistant Grade-I and accordingly as per the recommendation made by the Review DPC, by the order dated 03/10/2015, the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-I with effect from 29/01/2005 and accordingly the seniority of the petitioner was fixed below the name of Shri G.L. Namdeo at serial no. 4 and above the name of Shri S.P. Sahu at serial no 5 of the seniority list of the post of Assistant Grade-I. Prior to convening the review DPC which was held on 31/08/2015, the DPC for promotion to the post of Registrar from the post of Head Clerk/Hostel Superintendent was held on 27/02/2015 (Annexure R/1). 14. 4 and above the name of Shri S.P. Sahu at serial no 5 of the seniority list of the post of Assistant Grade-I. Prior to convening the review DPC which was held on 31/08/2015, the DPC for promotion to the post of Registrar from the post of Head Clerk/Hostel Superintendent was held on 27/02/2015 (Annexure R/1). 14. From a bare perusal of the minutes of the DPC held on 27/02/2015, it would be evident that the petitioner was not within the zone of consideration, whereas the names of Shri V K. Pandey and Shri G.L Namdeo were within the zone of consideration and they were found suitable/fit for being granted promotion to the post of Registrar and according to the recommendation made by the DPC held on 27/02/2015, Shri V.K. Pandey and Shri G.L. Namdeo were granted promotion to the post of Registrar. The petitioner was the Lower Division Clerk on the date when the DPC was held on 27/02/2015. The review DPC held in compliance of the order dated 11/01/2013, the petitioner was given proforma promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-I on 03/10/2015 only with effect from 29/01/2005. At the time when the DPC for promotion to the post of Registrar, the petitioner was not within the zone of consideration, whereas Shri V.K. Pandey and Shri G.L. Namdeo were within the zone of consideration for promotion and they were found fit/suitable for promotion and accordingly the DPC recommended the name of Shri V.K. Pandey and Shri G.L. Namdeo for promotion to the post of Registrar and accordingly they were granted promotion to the post of Registrar. Now all the post of Registrar are filled according to the roster and no vacancy is available for the post of Registrar. This petition is without any merit and liable to be dismissed. 15. I have heard the contentions put forth by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 16. Now all the post of Registrar are filled according to the roster and no vacancy is available for the post of Registrar. This petition is without any merit and liable to be dismissed. 15. I have heard the contentions put forth by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 16. This is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner filed previous writ petition being WPS No. 224/2011, wherein this Court vide order dated 11.01.2013 directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of Accountant as on the date, when his juniors were considered and promoted w.e.f. 07.03.1998 and if the petitioner is found fit for promotion on the post of Accountant w.e.f. 07.03.1998, the respondents would be under an obligation to undertake the exercise of considering the claim of petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of A.G.-I (Head Clerk) from due date. As per Annexure A/5, a review DPC was conducted and promotion was granted to the petitioner from 07.03.1998 on the post of Accountant and his promotion for A.G.-I was granted from 29.01.2005. For ready reference operative para of Annexure A/5 is reproduced as under: 17. The respondents submit that the meeting of DPC was convened on 27.02.2015 and Annexure A/5 was passed on 03.10.2015. At the time of meeting of DPC (Annexure R/1), petitioner was not promoted and name of petitioner was not considered for promotion. It is clear from Annexure R/1 that this meeting was conducted by the DPC on 27.02.2015, hence it is clear from seniority list that name of Shri V.K. Pandey was at S.No.8 and name of Shri G.L. Namdeo was at S.No.9 and name of Shri S.P. Sahu is find place at S.No.10. It is clear from Annexure A/5 that seniority of petitioner was fixed below the name of Shri G.L. Namdeo and above the name of Shri S.P. Sahu. It is also clear from Annexure R/1 that only the name of Shri V.K. Pandey (S.No.8) and Shri G.L. Namdeo (S.No.9) were considered for promotion. It is clear from Annexure A/5 that seniority of petitioner was fixed below the name of Shri G.L. Namdeo and above the name of Shri S.P. Sahu. It is also clear from Annexure R/1 that only the name of Shri V.K. Pandey (S.No.8) and Shri G.L. Namdeo (S.No.9) were considered for promotion. Name of Shri S.P. Sahu was not considered and in remark column it is written that no vacant post is available on cadre: lŒØŒ ofjŒØŒ vf/kdkjh dk uke tkfr oxZ fopkj ugha fd, tkus ds dkj.k 04 10 Jh ,lŒihŒ lkgw vukjf{kr laoxZ esa in fjDr u gksus ds dkj.k dksbZ vuq'kalk ugha 18. In whole petition, the petitioner did not disclose this fact that any junior was promoted or not. The respondents have duly considered the name of petitioner for promotion as per order of this Court. It is clear from Annexure R/1 that on the date of meeting i.e. 27.02.2015, the petitioner was not promoted, even otherwise as per Annexure A/6 seniority of the petitioner was below the name of Shri G.L. Namdeo, the DPC considered the name of one Shri V.K. Pandey, who was at S.No.8 and Shri G.L. Namdeo, who was at S.No.9. 19. It is clear from minutes of meeting that name of Shri S.P. Sahu was not considered for promotion as no post was vacant at that point of time. It is not the case of petitioner that his name was above Shri G.L. Namdeo or Shri V.K. Pandey and it is clear from Annexure A/6 that after promotion his name was found place below the name of Shri G.L. Namdeo and above the name of Shri S.P. Sahu, therefore, the respondents have rightly not considered the promotion of the petitioner at the time of DPC and after Annexure A/6. The petitioner never challenged the seniority fixed by the respondents as per Annexure A/6, when seniority was fixed below the name of Shri G.L. Namdeo. 20. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is without any merit and liable to be and is hereby dismissed.