Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

16/09/2025

1 Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal and Mr. Mehul Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent No. 1, Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/CGPSC as well as Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3-High Court.

2 With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is being heard finally. Since in all these petitions, the facts and issues are similar, they are being considered and decided by this common order.

3 By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):

In WPS No. 11089/2025

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to the case of the Petitioners(s) from the respondents.

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate writ(s) and direct the respondent authorities to either strike down Clause (3)(iv)(b) of the impugned advertisement dated 23.12.2024 or suitably amend the same to allow the Petitioners and all prosecuting officers to participate in the selection process for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), in accordance with the law and the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and other legal precedents cited herein.

10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to to pass an appropriate writ(s) and declare that the Petitioners as prosecuting officers, having already been recognized as eligible for the Higher Judicial Service (HJS) Examination under the recruitment notification issued by this Hon'ble Court, are also eligible for participation in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination. Consequently, the Petitioners may be permitted to participate in the present recruitment process, and any condition in the impugned advertisement that excludes them solely on this ground may be declared arbitrary, discriminatory, and inoperative in law.

10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to to pass an appropriate writ(s) and direct the respondents to allow the Petitioners and all prosecuting officers to participate in the recruitment process initiated vide advertisement dated 23.12.2024, as they are duly considered advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and other legal precedents referred to in this petition.

10.5 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing Clause (c) of Sub rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006, as amended vide notification dated 05.07.2024, as being inoperative and redundant in view of the subsequent amendment made vide notification dated 21.02.2025, and further hold that the said earlier amendment cannot be relied upon for disqualifying the Petitioners or similarly placed candidates.

10.6 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), writ(s), or order(s) as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

In WPS No. 11093/2025

“a) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to the case of the Petitioner(s) from the respondents.

b) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing Clause (c) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006, as amended vide notification dated 05.07.2024, and Clause (3)(iv)(b) advertisement dated 23.12.2024, as being inoperative and redundant in view of the subsequent amendment dated 21.02.2025; and further declare the same to be ultra vires, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Const