IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arup Kumar Goswami, Rakesh Mohan Pandey, JJ.
Vijayendra Mahilane S/o Babulal Mahilane and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Chief Secretary and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (S) No. 2530 & 5489 of 2021, Writ Petition (S) No. 938, 1588, 2695, 4356 of 2022, Writ Appeal No. 52 of 2022
Decided On : 10-03-2023
Constitution of India, 1949 – Article 14, 16, 21, 23, 38, 309 – Chhattisgarh Civil Service (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961 – Rule 8 – Recruitment Rules – Equality before law – Prohibition of traffic in human begins and forced labour – Writ petitions have been filed challenging Gazette Notifications issued by State Government in exercise of powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India whereby amendment has been effected – Held, Court not find violation of unreasonableness, arbitrariness in decision making process whereby impugned amendments have been brought and executive instructions for implementation of amended Rules had been issued – Petition filed by aspirants is not maintainable has been filed on a contingent condition that if petitioners get appointed in future against any Government Post, they will get stipend – Court opinion no cause of action had arisen for petitioners aspiring for recruitment to government service – Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.
1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the Gazette Notifications issued by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India whereby amendment has been effected under Rule 8(1) of Chhattisgarh Civil Service (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961 (for short, 'Rules of 1961'), sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 C of Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules and the Circulars issued by General Administration Department dated 29.07.2020, Finance Department dated 06.08.2020, and lastly by the School Education Department dated 15.09.2020.
One writ appeal has also been filed challenging the order dated 10.6.2021passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No 2090/2021, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. In the said writ petition, some circulars, which are under challenge in the present batch of writ petitions, were challenged.
2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are Teachers in School Education Department, Constables in Police Department, Government Servants appointed by Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission and aspirants, who wish to appear in the competitive examinations in future. The petitioners, who are in service, are being governed by their respective Recruitment Rules. The core challenge being almost similar, the writ petitions as well as the writ appeal are being disposed of by this common order.
3. The amendment brought by the State Government in the Rule 8(1) of Rules, 1961 reads as under :-
For sub-rule (1) of rule 8, the following shall be substituted, namely: –
"(1) A person appointed to a service or post by direct recruitment shall be placed on probation for first three years.”
The amendment brought by the State Government in the sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 C of Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules is as under:--
In the said rules:–
For sub-rule (1) of rule 22 C, the following shall be substituted, namely:–
“(1) (a) The following stipend shall be payable to the Government Servant selected to the post of direct recruitment during the probation period of three years:–
First year - 70 percent of the minimum of the pay scale of the post;
Second year - 80 percent of the minimum of the pay scale of the post;
Third year - 90 percent of the minimum of the pay scale of the post;
Provided that during the probation period, other allowances along with stipend shall be received as a Government Servant.
(b) On confirmation in the service or post after the expiry of the period of probation, the pay of the Government Servant shall be fixed at minimum in the time-scale applicable to the service or the post.
(c) The Government Servant selected on the posts of direct recruitment also includes the appointment of selected candidates through Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission.”
4. The circular dated 29.07.2020, issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, says that as Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1961 had been amended, all the departments of the State Government have to amend their respective Recruitment Rules and till the same is done, the Recruitment Rules of all the departments shall be considered as amended. Further, circular dated 06.08.2020 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, says that in pursuance of the notification issued by the General Administration Department dated 28.07.2020, a person appointed by direct recruitment to a service, has to be appointed on probation for a period of three years, and till the amendment is carried out in the Recruitment Rules by all the departments, the Recruitment Rules would be deemed as amended. In the circular issued by School Education Department dated 15.09.2020, it is stated that process for appointment of 14,580 teachers was under process and results were announced on 30.09.2019 and 22.11.2019 by Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (for short ‘CG.VYA.PA.M.’). On account of Covid-19, the Finance Department could
Howrah Municipal Corpn. and Others vs. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd. and Others
Point of Law : It is akin to doctrine of benefits and burdens which at its most basic level provides that a person taking advantage under an instrument which both grants a benefit and imposes a burde....
The power of relaxation in recruitment rules cannot override substantive mandates for promotion, ensuring adherence to constitutional rights to equality and fair promotion processes.
The court ruled that recruitment rules existing at the time of advertisement govern terms of appointment, and any retrospective application of subsequent rules is unconstitutional and violates the pr....
Widening the field of eligibility, in view of an amendment in the Recruitment Rules, does not amount to changing the rules of the game in the midst of the selection process.
The amendment allowing work-charged employees to seek promotion is constitutionally valid, as it involves rational classification and does not violate equality provisions.
The amendment mandating a Bachelor's Degree for certain promotions was constitutionally valid, emphasizing the employer's prerogative to set qualification standards related to job responsibilities.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.