Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1. Heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the State/appellants, Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Sunita Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.2 as well as Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.3 on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 73 days in filing the instant appeal.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No.01 is allowed and delay of 73 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

3. The appellants have filed this writ appeal against the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.3033 of 2023 and other connected matters, by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner therein / respondent No.1 herein.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ appeal has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 02.04.2026 passed in WA No.265 of 2026 (S.S. Tigga vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), wherein this Court held as under:-

          "8. On a perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the learned Single Judge, after adverting to Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003, particularly sub-rules (6), (7) and (9), has held that promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Prisons was required to be strictly governed by the principle of merit-cum- seniority, mandating a comparative assessment of merit of all eligible candidates within the zone of consideration. However, while examining the DPC proceedings dated 08.02.2023, the Court found that although the benchmark of "Very Good" ACR grading was applied and all candidates were held eligible, the DPC failed to undertake a meaningful comparative evaluation of their inter se merit and instead erroneously treated them as equal merely on the basis of similar gradings, thereafter proceeding to recommend the appellant solely on the basis of seniority, which according to the Court amounted to a mechanical application of seniority in derogation of the statutory requirement. Relying upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh and Others (II) vs. State of Punjab and Others (1999) 7 SCC 209 and Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Mehta (supra), the learned Single Judge concluded that merit must be the predominant consideration and seniority can operate only as a tiebreaker after proper merit assessment, and since in the present case the DPC failed to assess comparative merit despite the petitioner's claim of superior service record and ACR gradings, the promotion order dated 09.03.2023 and rejection of representation dated 26.04.2023 were held to be arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Rule 7(9), resulting in quashment of the promotion and direction for fresh consideration by a duly constituted DPC.

          9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

          10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s)"

          They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 265 of 2026, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 265 of 2026, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 265 of 2026.

6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 02.04.2026 passed in WA No. 265 of 2026.