Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ.
Dinesh Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Badlu Ram Yadav - Appellant
Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh, through: its Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Chhattisgarh & Ores. - Respondent
W.P.S. No. 1480 of 2021
Decided On : 23-04-2024
ARBITRARY - Constitutional Validity of Rules - Scheduled-IV - 14, 15 - The court discussed the constitutional validity of Sl. No.9 enacted under Rules 14 & 15 of Scheduled-IV of the Chhattisgarh State Municipal (Executive/Engineering/ Health) Services, Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2017. The court analyzed the provisions of the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 14 & 16, and the principles for examining constitutional validity for Acts/Rules. The court highlighted the principles of statutory interpretation, the presumption of constitutionality, and the grounds for striking down legislation. The court also emphasized the importance of judicial review in restraining unconstitutional exercise of power by the legislature and executive. The court concluded that the prescription of 12 years experience for promotion to the post of Health Officer from the post of Sanitation Inspector was not arbitrary and unreasonable, and therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the requirement of 12 years experience for promotion to the post of Health Officer from the post of Sanitation Inspector under the Chhattisgarh State Municipal Services Rules, 2017. They argued that the requirement was arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional, and sought new rules for promotion to the post of Chief Municipal Officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the requirement of 12 years experience for promotion to the post of Health Officer was not arbitrary and unreasonable. It held that the prescription of qualifications in terms of experience for a particular post is a matter of recruitment policy, and the State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. The court also noted that the absence of promotional opportunities may amount to a violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, but it does not extend to interfering with a policy providing for avenues of promotion.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were the constitutional validity of the requirement of 12 years experience for promotion to the post of Health Officer from the post of Sanitation Inspector, and the availability of promotional avenues for the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles of statutory interpretation, the presumption of constitutionality, and the grounds for striking down legislation. It emphasized that the prescription of qualifications in terms of experience for a particular post is a matter of recruitment policy, and the State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. The court also highlighted the importance of judicial review in restraining unconstitutional exercise of power by the legislature and executive.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in declaring the condition for promotion of Sanitation Inspector to the post of Health Officer as mentioned at Sl. No.9 of Scheduled IV of the Rules of 2017 as ultra vires and unconstitutional.
ORDER :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Invoking Writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners herein challenge the constitutional validity of Sl. No.9 enacted under Rules 14 & 15 of Scheduled-IV of the Chhattisgarh State Municipal (Executive/Engineering/ Health) Services, Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2017 (henceforth shall be referred to as, Rules of 2017) by which 12 years experience has been prescribed for Sanitation Inspector to qualify for the promotional post of Health Officer, branding it to be arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional and seeking a writ to declare it ultra vires and unconstitutional to the provisions of Section 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
2. Petitioner No.1 was appointed on the post of Sanitary Inspector on 22.10.1997 and Petitioners No.2 to 6 were also appointed on the post of Sanitary Inspector in the year 2013 and all of them are said to have working on the said post since their appointment. Grievance of the Petitioners is that different eligibility criteria have been fixed in Schedule-IV of the Rules of 2017 for promotion from the post of Sanitation Inspector to the post Health Officer for which 12 years experience has been prescribed on the post of Sanitation Inspector, which is clearly arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional to the provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Further grievance of the Petitioners is that after being promoted to the post of Health Officer, there are no further promotional avenues available for the Sanitary Inspector and therefore the Rules of 2017 require suitable amendment by way of change of cadre for promotion from the post of Sanitation Inspection to the post of Chief Municipal Officer. According to the Petitioners, there are only six posts of Health Officer available in the Municipal Council/Corporation in the State of Chhattisgarh. It is the further case of the Petitioners that Revenue Inspector, Revenue Sub Inspector, Accountant, Assistant Grade-I & II, who are having lower grade pay and less experience, are being promoted to the higher post of Chief Municipal Officer whereas the Sanitary Inspectors are being treated in a discriminatory manner in utter violation of the provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, the Petitioners also drew the attention of this Court to the Order dated 11.2.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No.3793/2018 titled as “Pushpa Khalko and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others” whereby Schedule-IV of the Rules of 2017 in respect to grant of avenues of promotion to Revenue Inspectors on the post of Chief Executive Officers has been struck down by a Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh declaring it to be utlra vires. Accordingly, the Petitioners prayed for the Rules of 2017 to be struck down declaring it to be ultra vires and unconstitutional and further prayed for framing of new rules by way of amendment in the Schedule-IV of the Rules of 2017 for promotion of Sanitary Inspector to the post of Chief Municipal Officer at part with the criteria fixed for the Revenue Inspectors.
3. Respondents/State filed their reply stating that since Petitioner No.1 was not found fit, he could not be granted promotion on the post of Health Officer but he has been paid time scale pay from time to time and further increments as per his entitlement. Similarly, Respondents No.2 to 6 also found not eligible as they do not fulfill minimum 12 years service period required on the post of Sanitary Inspector to be promoted on the post of Health Officer. Further, the relief sought for by the Petitioners for claiming promotion to the post of Chief Municipal Officer is also without any basis as the service rules prescribes for promotion channel of Sanitary Inspector to the post of Health Officer and it is in accordance with the proportion and as per the requirements and necessity of the Municipal Council/Corporation in the State subject
The prescription of qualifications in terms of experience for a particular post is a matter of recruitment policy, and the State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condi....
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.
The court affirmed that employers have the discretion to set educational qualifications for posts, which is not subject to judicial review unless found arbitrary or illegal.
Reduction in chances of promotion does not amount to a change in the conditions of service, and employees have a right to be considered for promotion, not a fundamental right to be promoted.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of rules governing the appointment and promotion of Sanitary Inspectors, the distinction between qualified and unqualified Sanitar....
The court upheld the state's relaxation of recruitment rules for employees lacking qualifications, asserting that such measures can mitigate undue hardship while respecting public service needs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
