Back
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL
Anil Chhari, S/o Late Ramswaroop Chhari – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Ministry of Public Works Deptt. – Respondent
ORDER :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. The petitioners three in number have called in question the constitutional validity of the Chhattisgarh Public Works Engineering (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 2015 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2015’) in general and in particular, Column 7 of Serial No.9 of Schedule – II enacted under Rule 6 of the said Rules by which separate quota has been fixed for Sub-Engineer and Draftsman by repealing the old Rules namely, the Madhya Pradesh Public Works Engineering (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1969 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1969’), in which separate quota for Sub-Engineer (Degree Holder) to the extent of 20% had been prescribed, branding the above-stated rule to be unconstitutional, and taking away the fundamental right of the petitioners to be promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil).
2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop:-
Petitioners’ Case: -
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are Sub- Engineers (Civil) and they are degree holders and are responsible for designing, constructing and maintaining buildings, floodcontrol projects, highways, sewage facilities and other kinds of large
The amendment affecting chances of promotion for employees does not necessarily constitute a change in the conditions of service, and the State has the power to unilaterally amend service rules.
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 amendment allowing work-charged employees to seek promotion is constitutionally valid, as it involves rational classification and does not violate equality provisions.
Promotion for eligible employees based on qualifications must be timely and fair, not delayed arbitrarily, upholding the principles of legitimate expectation and constitutional rights.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the promotion rules did not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the different cadres were not treated as equals, having....
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
