Order : (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.) 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 18.7.2023 by which respondent No.5 has rejected their claim for promotion while assigning reason that they were regularised vide order dated 23.6.2022 and as such they have not completed 5 years of service after their regularisation. It is the case of the petitioners that they were regularised way back on 8.9.2008, however, it has not been considered by respondent No.5 in an illegal and arbitrary manner. The petitioners are on the verge of superannuation and as such they are seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned order dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioners for promotion to Class-III, in accordance with law. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioners, are that petitioner No.1 was appointed on 25.8.1995 whereas petitioner No.2 was appointed vide order dated 24.3.1995. At the time of appointment, both possessed qualification of matriculation. On the basis of a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the State Government has issued a circular dated 5.3.2008 in which the State Government has directed for regularisation of Class III and Class IV employees who have continuously worked for more than 10 years. The petitioners, who were appointed in the office of Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Kanker, were regularised vide order dated 8.9.2008 on the vacant posts available in the department. Subsequently, a list for promotion from Class IV to Class III post was prepared, but, in the said list, names of the petitioners did not find place and the names of similarly situated employees, who were appointed in the year 2015, were included though the petitioners were appointed way back in the year 1995 on temporary basis and thereafter their services were regularised vide order dated 8.9.2008. Being aggrieved by such discrimination, the petitioners filed a petition, being Writ Petition (S) No.2694 of 2017 before this Court in which this Court vide order dated 27.6.2017 has directed the respondents authorities to consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in respect of their promotion. The petitioners were directed to prefer a representation before the concerned authorities and in turn the authorities were directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners while redressing their grievance. It is pertinent to mention this fact here that though the petitioners have filed representations before the authorities, however, instead of considering their representations and to grant them promotion, vide orders dated 20.4.2019 and 14.6.2021, the other peons were granted promotion. After considering the representation filed by the petitioners, as directed by this Court, respondent No.2, vide order dated 10.7.2023, directed respondent No.5 to consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in respect of their promotion as by that time the services of the petitioners were merged with the School Education Department vide circular dated 1.2.2015 issued by the General Administration Department. After all these developments, respondent No.2 has directed respondent No.5 to prepare a gradation list and promote the petitioners as per their place in the gradation list and the promotion rules. However, respondent No.5 has rejected the claim of the petitioners stating that the petitioners were regularised on 23.6.2022 and as such they have not completed 5 yeas of service for grant of promotion which is per se illegal on its teeth as the petitioners were regularised on 8.9.2008 on the basis of circular dated 5.3.2008 and they have completed about 15 years of service which is sufficient for their promotion to Class-III post. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 18.7.2023 is unreasonable, unjust and discriminatory and, therefore, it is hit by the postulates of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have already been regularized by order dated 8.9.2008 under the respondent No.1 department, but, due to illegal and malicious attitude of respondent No.5, the petitioners are being deprived from promotion and the petitioners are at the verge of retirement, which is per-se-illegal. The petitioners have already been regularized by order dated 8.9.2008 under the respondent No.1 department, but, due to illegal and malicious attitude of respondent No.5, the petitioners are being deprived from promotion and the petitioners are at the verge of retirement, which is per-se-illegal. The petitioners have already been regularized by order dated 8.9.2008 under the respondent No.1 and, therefore, their Permanent Pension Account Number (PPAN) have been allotted to them and the amounts towards provident fund were also deducted from the date of regularization. The petitioners are possessing requisite qualification for getting promotion on the post of Assistant Grade-III. The petitioners have worked for 28 years under the respondent No. 1 department without getting single chance of promotion, which is unsustainable in the eyes of law. By orders dated 20.04.2019 and 14.06.2021, the Peons working in District Kondagaon have been granted promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-III. Instead of considering the case of petitioners for promotion, vide order dated 06.07.2022, the respondent No. 5 has issued an order for regularization of services of petitioners, whereas the services of petitioners have already been regularized by order dated 08.09.2008. In the District Kanker also, the posts of Assistant Grade-III under promotional quota are lying vacant, but, the respondents authorities are not considering the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-III. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that a reasoned order has been passed by respondent No.5 which is not required to be interfered with. The services of the petitioners were absorbed in the School Education Department, as such their previous service is not required to be calculated for the purposes of their promotion. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with great circumspection. 6. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioners were appointed on temporary basis way back in the year 1995 as Class IV employees. Thereafter, their services were regularised vide order dated 8.9.2008 on the basis of circular dated 5.3.2008. As such the contention of respondent No.5 that the petitioners were regularised on 23.6.2022 is palpably illegal. 6. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioners were appointed on temporary basis way back in the year 1995 as Class IV employees. Thereafter, their services were regularised vide order dated 8.9.2008 on the basis of circular dated 5.3.2008. As such the contention of respondent No.5 that the petitioners were regularised on 23.6.2022 is palpably illegal. Once the petitioners were regularised on 8.9.2008, as such they have already completed more than 15 years of service and only on the basis of absorption of their services in the School Education Department it cannot be said that they have not completed sufficient period of service for their promotion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again said that promotion is an exigency of service and whenever required the employer is having duty to consider the case of employees for grant of promotion. Stagnation is regarded to be a thing due to which the performance and efficiency of the employee is affected. Whenever in the rules there are avenues of promotion, the authorities are bound to pass appropriate orders in respect of promotion as per entitlement of the employees. In the present case also, the petitioners are entitled for promotion in all respects. The other similarly placed employees have already been promoted, but, the petitioners were not granted promotion for the reasons best known to respondent No.5. The employees, who were regularised after the petitioners, namely, Tulsiram Uike, who has been regularised on 11.9.2008, has been given promotion. Likewise, Chain Singh Yadav, Rudra Pratap Singh have already been promoted. 7. The employee has the right to be considered for promotion as it is a fundamental right ensuring equal opportunity under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. In a similar judgment in Major General H.M. Singh, VSM v. Union of India , (2014) 3 SCC 670 , the question which had arisen before their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that whether non-consideration of claim of appellant would be discriminatory violating of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships have answered the query in affirmative while taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. Their Lordships have further held that the appellant could not be denied the promotion since the appellant had 14 months of army service remaining at the time when the vacancy in the rank of Lt. Their Lordships have answered the query in affirmative while taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. Their Lordships have further held that the appellant could not be denied the promotion since the appellant had 14 months of army service remaining at the time when the vacancy in the rank of Lt. General arose on 1.1.2007. Their Lordships have held as under: “28. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the non-consideration of the claim of the appellant would violate the fundamental rights vested in him under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The answer to the aforesaid query would be in the affirmative, subject to the condition, that the respondents were desirous of filling the vacancy of Lieutenant General, when it became available on 1.1.2007. The factual position depicted in the counter affidavit reveals, that the respondents indeed were desirous of filling up the said vacancy. In the above view of the matter, if the appellant was the senior most serving Major General eligible for consideration (which he undoubtedly was), he most definitely had the fundamental right of being considered against the above vacancy, and also the fundamental right of being promoted if he was adjudged suitable. Failing which, he would be deprived of his fundamental right of equality before the law, and equal protection of the laws, extended by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We are of the view, that it was in order to extend the benefit of the fundamental right enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, that he was allowed extension in service on two occasions, firstly by the Presidential order dated 29.2.2008, and thereafter, by a further Presidential order dated 30.5.2008. The above orders clearly depict, that the aforesaid extension in service was granted to the appellant for a period of three months (and for a further period of one month), or till the approval of the ACC, whichever is earlier. By the aforesaid orders, the respondents desired to treat the appellant justly, so as to enable him to acquire the honour of promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General, (in case the recommendation made in his favour by the Selection Board was approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet), stands affirmed. By the aforesaid orders, the respondents desired to treat the appellant justly, so as to enable him to acquire the honour of promotion to the rank of Lieutenant General, (in case the recommendation made in his favour by the Selection Board was approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet), stands affirmed. The action of the authorities in depriving the appellant due consideration for promotion to the rank of the Lieutenant General, would have resulted in violation of his fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such an action at the hands of the respondents would unquestionably have been arbitrary.” 9. As such, in the instant case, respondent No.5 is directed to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of their promotion and pass appropriate orders in respect of their promotion. The petitioners are said to be going to retire on 30.4.2025, as such the exercise for their promotion be completed within a period of 15 days from production of a copy of this order before their retirement so that they may get fruits of their promotion and the consequential benefit of pension and other service benefits may also be calculated on the basis of their promotion. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed.