IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that retrospective legislation must be expressly or impliedly authorized by the parent statute, and subordinate legislation can be given retrospective effect only if the power is contained in the main Act.

ORDER ON BOARD :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, the appellant herein namely Zila Panchayat, Raipur has preferred this writ appeal calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the judgment & order dated 30-7-2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S)No.1200/2013 by which the writ petition filed by respondent No.2 herein has partly been allowed and the appellant herein has been directed to consider the case of respondent No.2 herein on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I.

2. Advertisement was issued by the Zila Panchayat, Raipur on 5-10-2009 for recruitment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I as per the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shikshakarmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2007’) and minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I was second division in post graduation in which respondent No.2 herein also participated along with other candidates, but in the result of said recruitment process declared on 9-1- 2010, the writ petitioner / respondent No.2 herein has been declared ineligible as she did not have the requisite qualification under the Rules of 2007. However, a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Ram Chandra Ram and another v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, W.P.(S)No.6282/2009, decided on 1-7-2010 in batch of writ petitions, directed that if the condition in the Rules of 2007 is relaxed, candidates, who were not allowed to participate in the examination because of above condition, will be allowed to participate in future. (However, the writ petitioner/respondent No.2 herein was not party in that batch of writ petitions.) Thereafter, on 20-9-2010, the writ petitioner/respondent No.2 herein also filed W.P.(S) No.5403/2010 which was disposed of in terms of the order passed in Ram Chandra Ram (supra) giving liberty to the petitioner to move representation which he moved, however, with effect from 7th April, 2011, the rule making authority of the State Government amended the Rules of 2007 and qualification for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I has been prescribed as post graduation in the concerned subject and B.Ed.. According to the writ petitioner/respondent No.2 herein, he being a third division pass in post graduation degree became eligible for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade- I with effect from 7-4-2011, however, pursuant to another writ petition filed by respondent No.2 namely W.P.(S)No.1412/2012, the writ court directed the writ petitioner‘s/respondent No.2’s representation to be decided which was ultimately decided by the Zila Panchayat, Raipur on 6- 3-2013 rejecting the representation holding that respondent No.2 did not possess the requisite qualification on the date of advertisement which was challenged by respondent No.2 by again filing writ petition i.e. W.P.(S) No.1200/2013 in which the learned Single Judge by the impugned order directed for consideration of the writ petitioner’s case for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I. Being aggrieved against that order, the writ appellant/Zila Panchayat, Raipur has preferred this writ appeal calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the order impugned.

3. Mr. Manish Nigam, learned counsel appearing for writ appellant Zila Panchayat, Raipur, would submit that the learned writ court absolutely went wrong in directing for consideration of the case of respondent No.2 herein for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I, as on the date of advertisement dated 5-10-2009, the writ petitioner/respondent No.2 herein did not have the minimum qualification for appointment on the said post i.e. second division in post graduation + B.Ed., though by subsequent notification dated 28-1-2011, he had become eligible and he would be entitled to participate in future as per the judgment in Ram Chandra Ram (supra), but he cannot be held eligible for