ORDER :

1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

“10.1 The Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus thereby quashing the Rule 6 (1) (c) and Clause 17 of Schedule-II of Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Education and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to fill all the posts of Block Education Officers from Assistant Block Education Officers only, in the ends of justice.

10.2 The Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 07.09.2020 (Annexure P/2), in the ends of justice.

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favour of the petitioner, including cost.”

2. Facts projected in the writ petition are that petitioners were appointed on the post of Assistant Block Education Officer (In short ‘ABEO’) vide order dated 26.09.2015 under the Chhattisgarh School Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2009 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2009’). Respondents have notified the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2019’) repealing all rules corresponding to these rules and in force immediately before commencement of these rules. In the Rules of 2019, post ABEO is shown to be 100% direct recruitment and for their promotion to the next cadre is Block Education Officer (In short ‘BEO’) in which only 25% post has been reserved for promotion from the cadre of ABEO and rest of 75% post of BEO is to be filled from Principals. Petitioners have filed this petition stating that fixing of quota for promotion on the post of BEO to be discriminatory and further seeking relief of quashment of Rules (6) (1) (c) and Clause 17 of Schedule-II of the Rules of 2019 and for filling up of the post of BEO from the post of ABEO only and further to quash the order dated 07.09.2020 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure P-2).

3. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that in the School Education Department for the first time the rules have been framed for appointment of ABEO under the Rules of 2009. Pursuant to the Rules of 2009, post of ABEO were advertised in which petitioners participated and became successful and were appointed vide order dated 26.09.2015. Under Schedule-IV of the Rules of 2009, the promotional post for ABEO was BEO after completion of 10 years of service. 10% post of BEO were reserved for ABEO for their promotion. Under Rules 6 of the Rules of 2019, method of recruitment has been shown to be by way of direct recruitment through selection, by promotion, by transfer/deputation of person, under Schedule-II, 25% post of BEO is to be filled by promotion and 75% is to be filled up transfer/deputation of persons from other services and in remarks column of Schedule-II, 75% post are to be filled up by Principals with atleast 5 years experience. The provision under Rule-6 (1) (c) and entry made at Sr. No. 17 of the Schedule-II of the Rules of 2019 are contradictory. He also pointed out that for ABEO like petitioners, the first promotional channel is BEO and only 25% post have been reserved for them. The total post of ABEO is 268 and the promotional avenue for them is only on 185 posts of BEO which is less in number and even then only 25% post have been reserved for their promotion. Whereas, the Principals are having other promotional avenue, therefore their promotion on the post of BEO is discriminatory and arbitrary. During the course of arguments, he however fairly submits that the post can be filled-up by transfer/deputation also and therefore, he is mainly aggrieved with the ratio/quota fixed for promotion of ABEO to the post of BEO as 25% only and reserving 75% of post to be filled by the Principals. It is contended that respondents in arbitrary exercise of their