SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Chh) 407

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL, JJ.
Hardeo Ram Sahu S/o Shri Madhulal Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS Nos. 5528, 6913 of 2021, 829 of 2022
Decided On : 04-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Y.C. Sharma, Aishwary Diwan, Sachin Ashok Kale
For the Respondents: Ajit Singh, Rahul Tamaskar, Tushar Dhar Diwan

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.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Chhattisgarh Secretariat Service Recruitment Rules, 2012 - Amendment prescribing Bachelor’s Degree as qualification for promotion to Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary, and Section Officer challenged as unreasonable - The amendment was deemed necessary for administrative efficiency and alignment with the eligibility criteria for similar posts - Petitioners lacked a vested right of promotion and only had a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the prevailing rules. (Paras 1, 11, 27, 34)

(B) Legislative Competence - The prerogative to amend rules regulating promotions is vested in the State Government, and amendments should reflect the administrative needs of the State - The obligation to justify the amendments rests on the challengers to prove unconstitutionality. (Paras 5, 21)

(C) Judicial Scrutiny - Courts must defer to legislative amendments unless a clear violation of fundamental rights is established - Hardship concerns alone are insufficient for invalidation of legislation. (Paras 29, 30)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the amendment to the Chhattisgarh Secretariat Service Recruitment Rules, which introduced a Bachelor’s Degree as a requirement for promotional posts, claiming it violated their constitutional rights without adequate justification. Several petitioners had retired during the pendency of the proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the amendment, emphasizing the state's right to regulate qualifications for promotions and finding no constitutional violation.

Issues: Whether the amendment mandating a Bachelor's Degree for promotion was unconstitutional and whether it infringed the petitioners' rights under Articles 14 and 16.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that the added educational qualification was justified for ensuring competency in higher posts and that the petitioners had no vested right to promotion, only a right to be considered under the current rules.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. common legal and factual questions arise. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioners argue amendment is unconstitutional. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. state defends amendment as reasonable and legal. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. burden of proof lies on those challenging the statute. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. hardship does not invalidate legislation. (Para 20 , 28 , 31)
6. legitimacy of classifications based on qualifications. (Para 21 , 23 , 24)
7. amendment upheld; writ petitions dismissed. (Para 34)

ORDER :

1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners herein have questioned the constitutional validity of notification dated 14-6-2021, whereby the Chhattisgarh Secretariat Service Recruitment Rules, 2012 (for short ‘the Rules of 2012’) have been amended inserting Bachelor’s Degree as qualification for appointment by promotion to the posts of Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary and Section Officer in serial Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7 of Schedule-IV, in addition to the requisite experience. All the posts with respect to which the challenge has been made, are 100% promotional posts.

2. Since common question of law and fact is involved in this batch of writ petitions, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The sole petitioner in WPS No.5528/2021 namely, Hardeo Ram Sahu retired from service and similarly, petitioner No.3 Tirth Prasad Ladiya, petitioner No.4 Anwarursheed Khan, petitioner No.12 Smt. Emerensia Xess and petitioner No.13 Janak Kumar in WPS No.829/2022 retired from service, during the pendency of writ petitions. Similarly, petitioner No.9 Ravindra Kumar Barsagade and petitioner No.10 Krishna Kumar Sharma in WPS No.6913/2021 retired from service during the pendency of writ petition.

Facts in Brief

4. Challenge to the amended rule has been made on the ground that amendment in the rule introducing the prescription of qualification of Bachelor’s Degree for the promotional posts is unreasonable, unfair and violative of their constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as it is the case of the petitioners that the respondent State has not given any explanation in the counter-affidavit filed before this Court as to what is the need/requirement of adding the additional educational qualification of Bachelor’s Degree for the promotional posts of Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary and Section Officer. It is the case of the petitioners that it was the duty of the State to assign reason to bring any amendment in the rules and it must reflect reasonable, fair and not grossly unjust, however, in the present case, no such reason has been mentioned which is unreasonable and unfair on the part of the State and as such, violative of the petitioners’ rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is the further case of the petitioners that the aforesaid amendment has been made only in Schedule-IV of the Rules of 2012 and no amendment has been made in the substantive provision of Rule 14 of the Rules of 2012 which deals with Conditions of Eligibility for Promotion and introduction of educational qualification of Bachelor’s Degree is totally unnecessary, as they are working for fairly long time on the feeder post and some of them had already retired from service.

5. The State of Chhattisgarh has filed return stating inter alia that it is purely the prerogative of the State Government to amend the rules regulating promotion and rules can be altered by the State Government unilaterally, the petitioners have no vested right of promotion, mere chance of promotion is not a condition of service and the petitioners have no enforceable right to challenge the rule by which the educational qualification of Bachelor’s Degree has been prescribed for promotion to higher posts as it is full of responsibility considering the nature of work performed by the promotees. Educational qualification of Bachelor’s Degree has been added for t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top