ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- “A. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the promotion to the post of Dy. Director/Sr. Secretary (Prever Grade). B. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside/quashed the impugned order dated 24-07- 2008 (Annexure (P/dagger) issued by the Respondent No. 3 and memo dated 11-11-2010 (Annexure P/13) issued by the Respondent No. 4. C. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold that the petitioners are entitled for consideration of promotion to the post of Dy. Director/Sr. Secretary (Prever Grade). D. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to further hold that the Respondent No. 5 to 13 are not entitled for promotion according to the promotion rules as Chhattisgarh Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2003. E. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the order dated 03- 05-2007 issued by the Respondent No. 3 whereby, the respondent No. has been granted out of turn seniority much above the petitioner against the rules and further set aside the subsequent seniority list period from 2006 to 2008 issued by the Respondent authority from time to time. F. Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Secretary Grade-IV and was posted at Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur on the pay scale of Rs. 220-5-240-6-270-10-300- 10-350-12.5-375/- and in due course of time the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Sr. Secretary on 29-01-2005. The Respondent Authorities from time to time issued the gradation list/Seniority list of the Senior Secretary. In the seniority list issued from 2003 to 2007-08, the name of the petitioner finds place above the Respondent No.5 to 13. Thus the petitioner is admittedly senior to the Respondent No. 5 to 13. It is pertinent to mention that the Respondent No.3 in a most arbitrary manner and contrary to the Viniyam 1998 without any basis issued an order dated 03-05-2007 and granted 5 seniority to the Respondent No.4 much above the petitioner and the Respondent No.5 has been placed at Serial No.1 in the seniority list as on 01- 04-2007, whereas in the original seniority list the name of the Respondent No. 5 was placed at Serial No.36. In between the petitioner was placed under suspension in respect of alleged irregularities and he was also served with the charge sheet and faced the departmental enquiry and ultimately in the departmental appeal, he has been exonerated from all the charges. The petitioner was facing departmental enquiry between 13-02-2008 to 08-07-2010. According to the Chhattisgarh Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2003, the promotion in respect of promotion from Grade II to Grade I should be purely based on seniority-cum-suitability. During the pendency of the department enquiry against the petitioner, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was duly constituted in July 2008 for consideration of promotion from Grade II to Grade I ie. promotion from the post of senior secretary to the post of Dy. Director but the departmental promotion committee did not follow the norms of the Promotion Rules and the name of the petitioner was not considered for promotion at all and the names of the Respondents Nos. 5 to 13 were recommended, who are much juniors to the petitioner. On the basis of recommendation of the DPC, the Respondent Board issued the promotion order to the Respondents Nos. 5 to 12 on the post of Dy. Director. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the seniority list dated 21-09-2006 and 22-07-2008, the Respondent No.5 to 13 are juniors to the petitioner therefore the Respondent No.5 to 13 are not entitled for promotion to the post of Dy. Director/Sr. Secretary (Prever Grade) according to the promotion rules applicable. Since the petitioner has already been exonerated from all the charges in the departmental proceeding, he is eligible for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted and on the basis of seniority- cum-suitability/fitness, the petitioner is eligible and qualified for consideration for promotion to the post of Dy Director/Sr. Secretary (Prever Grade). It is a settled principle of law that if any criminal prosecution or departmental enquiry is pending against the delinquent employee at the time of consideration of promotion, the respondent authority/DPC are bound to follow the procedure of sealed cover and if the concerned employee is exonerated from the alleged charges then he would be entitled for all consequential benefits as well as promotion from the date his juniors were promoted. The Departmental Promotion Committee at the time of consideration of promotion to post of Dy. Director/Sr. The Departmental Promotion Committee at the time of consideration of promotion to post of Dy. Director/Sr. Secretary (Prever Grade) has not followed the Chhattisgarh Public Service (Promotion) Rule 2003, which is applicable to the petitioner and Respondents Board, whereas the D.P.C. recommended the name of the Respondent No.5 to 13 for promotion to the post of Dy. Director/Sr. Secretary (Prever Grade), which is contrary to the promotion Rules. According to the promotion rule the petitioner is well qualified and eligible for consideration of promotion to the post of Dy. Director. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Shukla vs Arvind Rai and others, passed in Civil Appeal No.5966/2021, decided on 08.12.2021, the judgments rendered by this Court in the matters of K.P. Patel vs State of Chhattisgarh and others, reported in (2006) 1 CGLJ 264, Rajendra Tiwari vs State of Chhattisgarh and others, reported in (2017) 1 CGLJ 444 and further in the matter of Shri Yogendra Babu Sharma vs Union of India and others, passed in WPS No.1646/2019, decided on 19.10.2023. 4. Learned State counsel strongly opposes the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel and submits that the petitioner has challenged the promotion order dated 24.07.2008 and memo dated 11.11.2010 issued by the respondent No.3 and 4. The petitioner is the employee of the Chhattisgarh State Agricultural Marketing Board and no order or action of the respondent State is under challenge in this petition and no relief has been claimed against the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, the State of Chhattisgarh is a formal party in this petition. The Chhattisgarh State Agricultural Marketing Board is an autonomous institution and services of its employees are governed by the rules framed by the Chhattisgarh State Agricultural Marketing Board. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed against the respondent No.1. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2, 3 & 4 strongly opposes the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel and submits that the instant petition suffers from delay and laches. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed against the respondent No.1. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2, 3 & 4 strongly opposes the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel and submits that the instant petition suffers from delay and laches. In the instant petition the petitioner is challenging the seniority list of the period 2006 to 2008 and is also challenging the out of turn seniority granted by order dated 03.05.2007, but no reasons have been given by the petitioner as to why he did not challenge the order dated 03.05.2007 within reasonable time. Further also no reason has been assigned by the petitioner for not challenging the seniority list for the period 2006 to 2008. The petitioner has also not filed any objection before the competent authority challenging the seniority list for the period 2006 to 2008. The challenge to the seniority list in the year 2011 is bound to upset the entire structure of administrative setup, as the writ petition was filed in the year 2011. The petitioner should be estopped from challenging the seniority list on the ground of delay. The petitioner had accepted the seniority list for the period 2006 to 2008 and thus he cannot challenge the same in the year 2011. Thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the count of delay and laches. In the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the seniority list for the period 2006 to 2008 and is also seeking quashing of promotion order dated 24 07 2008 inter-alia seeking promotion for himself for the post of Dy Director/Senior Secretary (Pravar Shreni). The petitioner has joined multiple cause of action in one petition and is seeking several reliefs which is not permissible in law. The petitioner was duly considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee held in the year 2008 for promotion to the post of Dy Director/Senior Secretary (Pravar Shreni). The Departmental Promotion Committee found the petitioner unfit for promotion. Thus, the name of the petitioner was not recommended for promotion. The employee has a right to be considered for promotion but he cannot claim promotion as a vested right. In the present case, the petitioner has been duly considered for promotion and was found unfit for promotion Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The petition is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits. The employee has a right to be considered for promotion but he cannot claim promotion as a vested right. In the present case, the petitioner has been duly considered for promotion and was found unfit for promotion Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The petition is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits. Reliance has been placed on the order passed by this Court in the matter of Chhattisgarh State Agricultural Marketing Board and others vs Thomas Toppo and another, passed in WA No.418/2017, order dated 30.08.2018 and in the matter of Kailash Chandra Sharma vs C. G. State Agriculture Marketing Board and others, passed in WPS No.5782/2007, decided on 12.01.2023. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5, 6 & 10 strongly opposes the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel and submits that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands disclosing the complete facts which are material for the final adjudication of the dispute espoused by him. The petitioner has never assailed the DPC proceeding held in the year 2008 and have deliberately concealed the fact that the petitioner was duly considered in the said DPC. The petitioner admittedly was placed under suspension and thereafter was subject to a departmental enquiry wherein the petitioner suffered an order of punishment on 06/02/2010. It was in between that a DPC was convened for grant of promotion to the post of Deputy Director/Sr. Secretary (Prever Grade) on 23/07/2008. Though the petitioner was facing a departmental enquiry but even then his candidature was duly considered by the DPC and after thorough scrutiny of the records, the DPC found the petitioner unfit since the petitioner did not meet the minimum benchmark as was prescribed by the DPC for the said promotion. The promotion had to be done on the criteria of seniority-cum-merit and therefore all the candidates had to be adjudged with the minimum benchmark which was prescribed by the DPC whereafter the seniors most were to be considered for grant of promotion. The petitioner had three (Kha) and One (Ga) in the Annual Character Report (ACR in short) of preceding 5 years and therefore the petitioner did not satisfy the minimum benchmark and was accordingly declared unfit by the DPC. As a result the petitioner could not be promoted to the post of Deputy Director/Sr. Secretary (Prever Grade) in the year 2008. The petitioner had three (Kha) and One (Ga) in the Annual Character Report (ACR in short) of preceding 5 years and therefore the petitioner did not satisfy the minimum benchmark and was accordingly declared unfit by the DPC. As a result the petitioner could not be promoted to the post of Deputy Director/Sr. Secretary (Prever Grade) in the year 2008. It is wholly incorrect that the petitioner was not promoted owing to the pendency of the departmental enquiry. Since the petitioner was declared unfit, the proceeding of close envelope was not required to be adopted. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 7. No one appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.7 to 9 and 11 to 13 despite notice being served upon them. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is not disputed in this case that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Secretary Grade-IV and was posted at Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Lormi, District Bilaspur and in due course of time, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Secretary on 29.01.2005. It is also not disputed that the seniority list was issued from 2003 to 2007 and the name of the petitioner finds place above the respondent Nos.5 to 13. It is also not disputed that by order dated 03.05.2007, the respondent No.5 was promoted and his name has been placed at Sr. No.1 in the seniority list as on 01.04.2007. 10. The petitioner has filed the order dated 03.05.2007 (Annexure- P/6), whereby the respondent No.5 has been granted seniority over and above the petitioner and other private respondents, whereas the Annexure-R/1 has been filed by the respondents, which is an appeal preferred by the respondent No.5, wherein the petitioner Rajendra Kumar Sharma is the respondent No.4 in that appeal. It is also clear from Annexure-P/6 that the respondent No.5’s appeal was allowed vide order dated 03.05.2007 and his seniority was fixed above Shri Asharam Sahu and others, who were non applicant Nos.2 to 14 in that appeal. It is also clear from Annexure-P/6 that the respondent No.5’s appeal was allowed vide order dated 03.05.2007 and his seniority was fixed above Shri Asharam Sahu and others, who were non applicant Nos.2 to 14 in that appeal. The operating part of this order (Annexure-P/6) is as under:- ^^var% ekuuh; v/;{k egksn; }kjk vihykFkhZ Jh egsUnz flag loUuh ofj"B lfpo] d`f"k u.Mh lfefr fcYkkliqj dh vihy es ikfjr fu.kZ; ds ifjikyu esa Jh egsUnz flag loUuh] lfpo dks mŸkjoknh Øekad 2 ls 14 ds mij vFkkZr izFke LFkku ij ofj"Brk iznku dh tkrh gSA ri fnukad 01-04-2005 ,oa fnukad 01-04-2006 dh fLFkfr esa lfpo ofj"B laoxZ ds fy;s tkjh dh ofj"Brk lwph esa mŸkjokfn;ksa dh rqyuk esa vihykFkhZ dks loksZPp LFkku ij vafdr fd;k tkosA^^ Thereafter the gradation list was published. The petitioner has filed documents of his departmental enquiry and it is the case of the petitioner that he was exonerated in that departmental proceedings so he is entitled for promotion from back date. It is clear from minutes of DPC meeting dated 23.07.2008 (Annexure- P/17) that petitioner's name was also considered for promotion and he was found unfit for promotion. It is also clear from this meeting that 16 names were considered for promotion but only 9 names were recommended for promotion. The respondents have also filed ACRS of petitioner and it is clear from chart that the petitioner secured 10 marks so he was found unfit for promotion. The petitioner challenged the same on the ground that his name was not recommended due to departmental enquiry proceeding against him, but it is clear from DPC that petitioner’s name was considered but he was not found fit on the basis of previous ACRs and not on the basis of departmental enquiry proceeding. 11. The respondent No.3 has filed the Rajya Mandi Board Sewa Viniyam 1998, which is applicable for promotion, seniority etc. Rule 15 of the said Rule states about promotion and Rule 24 about seniority and based on the said Rules, the promotion has been made, which is under challenge. 12. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2018 passed in WA No.418/2007 has observed in para 5 as under:- “5. The Appellants are aggrieved by the said order and have taken two legal grounds to assail it. 12. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2018 passed in WA No.418/2007 has observed in para 5 as under:- “5. The Appellants are aggrieved by the said order and have taken two legal grounds to assail it. The first argument on behalf of the counsel representing the Chhattisgarh State Agricultural Marketing Board as well as the State is that the judgment of the learned Single Judge stands vitiated for the reason that the case of Rajendra Tiwari (supra) which was an issue relating to grant of promotion in Excise Department has been erroneously used for deciding the case of the private Respondent No. 1. In case of Rajendra Tiwari (supra), the relevant rules talked of 'seniority- cum-fitness' but there is a separate set of rules for grant of promotion in the Mandi services which is governed by the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Board Service Rules, 1998 (for short 'the Rules, 1998'). Rule 15 of the Rules, 1998 lays down the basis and parameters for consideration in matters of grant of promotion to the employees of the Marketing Board. Here, parameters are either 'seniority-cum-merit' or 'merit-cum-seniority'. There is no concept of 'seniority- cum-fitness' and therefore, drawing analogy from the decision of Rajendra Tiwari (supra) and not taking into consideration the Rules which govern the said employees including the private Respondent No.1 has caused not only an error in the decision but also a wrong decision has come to be rendered, finding loopholes in the decision making which was not even the parameters on which the DPC decided the issue of promotion of the private Respondent.” 13. This Court vide order dated 12.01.2023 passed in WPS No.5782/2007 has observed in para 10 as under:- “10. Applying the aforesaid principle in the present case as well, it is manifest that in the case in hand, there was no such rules or regulations made by the respondent Board for the purpose of promotion in the respondent Board, therefore, in absence of any rules or regulations in this regard, the Chhattisgarh Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003 were adopted by the respondent Board and the criteria for promotion on the post of Assistant Accountant Officer was ascertained as ‘Grade-B’ based on the performance of the candidates for last 5 years and seniority-cum- merit basis formula was adopted while granting promotion on the aforesaid post. In the joint seniority list of accountant and auditor, the petitioner being the eligible candidate based on the ACRs and other eligibility criterias was promoted to the post of Assistant Account Officer. True it is that the petitioner was graded as ‘Ka’, whereas the respondent No.6 as ‘Kha, but the criteria for promotion was only grade ‘Kha’ based on the aggregated ACRs of last 5 years and not ‘Ka’. Apart from it, the respondent No.6 was senior to the petitioner, as is evident from the document (Annexure-P/9), wherein the first joining date of respondent No.6 in the service is 02.11.1985 and in the cadre is 08.02.1993, whereas the petitioner’s first joining date in the service is 02.09.1987 and in the cadre is 07.01.1994. The stand taken by the petitioner that the respondent No.6 has wrongly been promoted to the post of Assistant Account Officer, as he was punished with penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and the departmental enquiry was also pending against him, but perusal of the chart (Annexure-P/10) shows that though the respondent No.6 was awarded penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and show cause notice was also issued to him for non compliance of the superior’s order, but there was no departmental enquiry proceeding pending against him at the time of promotion. Even otherwise, the penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect is a minor punishment. Thus, it appears that the petitioner has not been set at naught while granting promotion to the respondent No.6 on the post of Assistant Account Officer, as he was promoted based on the eligibility criteria. Thus, the respondent No.6 has rightly been promoted by the DPC and service rules and other promotional rules as well as the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court apropos seniority-cum-merit have been duly followed. 14. In light of the above principles and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the respondent No.5 was promoted vide order dated 03.05.2007 and was placed at 1st position above the petitioner and other private respondents. In the said order, the petitioner is also one of the employees, above whom the respondent No.5 was promoted, but the petitioner did not challenge the said order. In the said order, the petitioner is also one of the employees, above whom the respondent No.5 was promoted, but the petitioner did not challenge the said order. It is clear that in the DPC dated 23.07.2008, the name of the petitioner was also considered but since the petitioner did not have the minimum benchmark, as such DPC did not recommend the name of the petitioner for promotion on the aforesaid post. It is clear from the minutes of the meeting of DPC that the petitioner’s name was not considered due to his less merit based on the ACRs of last 5 years and in the whole meeting, the departmental enquiry has not been made the criteria for promotion and even otherwise the petitioner was subsequently exonerated from the charges levelled against him, therefore, no case is made out in favour of the petitioner. 15. The petition being bereft of any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly.