AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J.

1. Petitioners have preferred the writ application to declare Rule 6(1)(a) of Chhattisgarh Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rule, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2012 Rule') to be ultra vires the Constitution of India.

2. On 17.08.2012, the 2012 Rule was notified in exercise of power conferred under Section 70 sub-Section (1) as well as Section 53 sub-Section (1) read with Section 95 sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayatraj Adhiniyam, 1993.

3. The Rule in question was notified to recruit teachers at the Panchayat level across the State with an effort to codify the law and bring some kind of surety to the method of recruitment, appointment and their service conditions.

4. The Rule under attack is Rule 6(1)(a) of the 2012 Rule which reads as under :-

^^6- HkrhZ dk rjhdk & ¼1½ bu fu;eksa ds izkjaHk gksus ds Ik'pkr lsok esa HkrhZ fuEufyf[kr rjhdks ls dh tk;sxh] vFkkZr%&

¼d½ esfjV }kjk ;k izfr;ksxh ijh{kk }kjk p;u ds ek/;e ls vFkok jkT; 'kklu }kjk le;≤ ij tkjh fd;s x;s vkns'k@funsZ'k ds vuqlkj lh/kh HkrhZ }kjkA^^

5. Submission of the counsel for the Petitioners is that in the earlier Rule of 2007, there was a provision that in case the number of applicants are less than the advertised vacancies then the selection will be on the basis of merit, but if the number of applicants are more than the vacancy, then a written examination shall be conducted. However, to dilute the effect of such process of selection, Rule 6(1)(a) has been incorporated where discretion has been granted to the Panchayat to either make selections on the basis of merit or competitive examination. This, according to the counsel for the Petitioners is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

6. To buttress his argument further, counsel submits that in actual working some of the Panchayats had made selection of the candidates on merit and most of the selected candidates happened to be from a private University, where candidates are awarded more marks than a Government Institution and to that extent, the merit position become inequitable. He further submits that there are no standardizations in terms of course and conduct of examination of various Educational Institutions or Universities and therefore, merit cannot be judged on the basis of marks obtained by a candidate or awarded to him from different Universities as there is great variance therein.

7. Such submissions cannot become the basis for striking down a Rule or a legislation, where power to make such legislation is not a matter of argument. So far as violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is concerned, Rule 6(1)(a) of the 2012 Rule provides that recruitment will be done either on merit or by competitive examination depending upon the instructions which may be issued by the State administration from time to time with regard to direct recruitment.

8. We fail to appreciate as to how recruitment either made on the basis of merit or by competitive examination can be said to be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India because both the concepts are very much present in matters of recruitment and it will depend upon the number of vacancies, the number of candidates competing in the said recruitment process and other such factors which may necessitate holding of a competitive examination, especially when the applicants far out number the posts which are on offer, in an advertisement.

9. The apprehension of the counsel for the Petitioners that such a discretion conferred upon the Panchayat has every possibility of misuse, because there is no guidelines whether such recruitment should be done on the basis of merit or on the basis of competitive examination seems to be misplaced.

10. The guidelines are inherent and we have also noticed that the process of such recruitment will be decided by the State Government from time to time and appropriate order or direction is required to be issued by