S. P. Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. — Supreme Court Restores Promotion, Affirms Registrar's Rule-Making Authority
Case Overview
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case: S. P. Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Appeal: Civil Appeal No. ______ of 2026 (Arising Out of SLP (C.) No. 8726 of 2024)
Date of Order: 30/07/2026
Background and Factual Matrix
The present appeal arose from a promotion dispute within the District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Raipur (DCCBL), where the appellant challenged a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur dated 02.02.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No. 338 of 2023. That judgment had confirmed the Single Judge's order dated 31.07.2023 in WPS No. 1799 of 2011, which quashed the appellant's promotion to the post of Additional Manager.
Both the appellant (S. P. Chandrakar) and respondent No. 5 (Kishor Bagh) were employees of DCCBL. Their service conditions were governed by the Chhattisgarh District Cooperative Central Bank Employee Service (Employment, Terms and their Working Conditions) Rules, 1982 (Rules 1982), framed under Section 55 of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (Act, 1960).
The core controversy revolved around amendments made to Rule 5(3)(a) of Rules 1982, which originally prohibited technical employees — such as those appointed as Assistant Engineers — from being promoted or absorbed into administrative or non-technical posts. The appellant's original appointment had been to a technical post (Assistant Engineer), and respondent No. 5 contended that, under the unamended Rule 5(3)(a), the appellant was ineligible to be promoted to the post of Additional Manager.
Pre-Amendment Position Under Rules 1982
The unamended Rule 5(3) read as follows:
"(a) Such employees who have been appointed in the service of the Bank for any special technical work or service shall not be appointed or absorbed in posts with work different from the work of the original post.
(b) If the technical work/service, for which purpose the employee has been appointed, is discontinued or the post created for such special work in the Bank is no longer required, then the employee working on such post may be separated from service.
(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in this service rule or the by-laws of the Bank, such an employee shall not be regularized in the service of the Bank, whose appointment has not been made in accordance with the service rules of the Bank or the procedures prescribed in the service rules have not been followed."
Sequence of Events Leading to the Dispute
- In the gradation list for Class-I officers for 2005–06, the appellant was initially omitted but was subsequently included upon making a correction application.
- In the seniority list published on 06.11.2008 for the year 2007–08, the appellant was placed at Serial No. 1 and respondent No. 5 at Serial No. 2.
- Respondent No. 5 raised objections to this placement and to the appellant's eligibility for promotion to an administrative post, given his original appointment on a technical post.
- Technical employees, including the appellant, submitted a representation seeking deletion of the restriction in Rule 5(3)(a).
- On 13.08.2010, the Additional Registrar issued a communication stating that Rule 5(3)(a) stood deleted, acting under the Registrar's orders.
- When the list of eligible candidates was published on 01.12.2010, the appellant was placed at Serial No. 1 and respondent No. 5 at Serial No. 2.
- Following the Departmental Promotion Committee's recommendation dated 20.12.2010, the appellant was promoted to Additional Manager vide order dated 30.12.2010.
- Respondent No. 5 challenged this promotion by filing a writ petition, which ultimately succeeded before the Single Judge — thirteen years after the appellant had been functioning on the promoted post. The Division Bench confirmed the Single Judge's findings.
The Amendment Notifications
First Notification — Registrar's Order Dated 04.07.2005
The Office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh issued the following: