The court upheld the validity of amended promotion rules, ruling they apply prospectively and that participation in the selection process waives the right to challenge it.

Order :

(Bibhu Datta Guru, J.)

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking for the following reliefs :-

10.1 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case.

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass suitable orders that the rules of promotion of the petitioners as laid down in the relevant Service Rules, 2003 and 2015 be only applicable to consider the promotion of the petitioners.

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass suitable order(s) to quash the amendment in promotion rules criteria notified in 2017 based on which the impugned notice dated 24.02.2022 has been issued.

10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass suitable order(s) to quash the impugned notice dated 24.02.2022.

10.5 That, the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to direct the competent authority to consider and issue promotion order to the petitioner from class-IV to Assistant Grade-III on the basis of experience and qualification criteria as envisaged from Rule 2015 read with Rule 2003.

10.6 Any appropriate writ, direction or order in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. By way of instant petition, the petitioners, who are the class IV employees of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, are challenging the Notice No.26 (Mis.)/II-14-1/2021(AG-III Pro.) dated 24-02-2022 issued by the respondent No.1 by which it is notified that written test and skill test for promotion against 69 vacant posts of Assistant Grade-III will be conducted on 05.03.2022 from 11.00 A.M. onwards at CSJA, Bodri, Bilaspur. The petitioners are also aggrieved and challenges the amendment brought in Sr.No.11, First Schedule, Class-III to the Chhattisgarh High Court Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules , 2017 (henceforth ‘the Rules, 2017’) by which the criteria/norms of promotion of the petitioners working as Class-IV employees of the establishment for promotion to Assistant Grade-III has been amended contrary to the provisions of promotion to Grade-III as was mentioned at clause No. 17 of Amendment incorporated vide No.53 (Mis.)/II-15-19/2002 Dated 09-01-2015 of the said Rules read with Rule first made in the year 2003 namely; the Chhattisgarh High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2003 (henceforth ‘the Rules, 2003’) vide Gazette Notification No.5488/II-15-19/2002 dated 10th December 2003.

3. (i) Learned counsel appearing for the the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were appointed as class-IV employees in the High Court of Chhattisgarh and according to them they have rendered period of 15-20 years service on same pay and posts without any promotion. He would further submit that the Service Rules pertaining to the petitioners were formulated and published through gazette notification in the year 2003 i.e. the Rules, 2003 by which promotion criteria from Class-IV to Assistant Grade-III was prescribed under part-V serial No.7(a). As per the said Rules, the petitioners were entitled to promotion after completion of two years of service in their existing post with educational qualification of either graduate or higher secondary exam pass with Hindi or English Type writing examination. Subsequently, the promotion criteria of class IV employees has been amended vide notification dated 09.01.2015. He would further submit that the same has again been changed pursuant to framing of new rules i.e. the Rules, 2017 by which provision of written test and skill test criteria was inserted with more rigors to qualify.

(ii) Learned counsel would submit that thereafter, the petitioners made representations to the competent authority of the High Court praying that the amended criteria of promotion may be withdrawn and their candidature may be considered for promotion on the basis of seniority as was considered in the past. However, without considering the representation of the petitioners, the impugned notice f