2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 12275

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Arvind Kumar Verma, JJ
Pushpa Khalko – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 3793 of 2018

The state has the prerogative to determine service rules, equate posts, and assign promotional channels. These policy decisions are valid unless they are manifestly arbitrary or violate constitutional provisions, as employees have no vested right to a specific promotional cadre, only a right to be considered for promotion.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 162, 166, 243W, 243Q - Municipalities Act - Sections 86, 87, 94, 355 - Constitutional validity of service rules - Promotion - Feeder cadre - The State Government has the power to prescribe service conditions, classify posts, and provide channels of promotion. The establishment of multiple feeder cadres for promotional posts, including equating different categories of posts, is a policy matter within the exclusive domain of the executive. Judicial interference is limited to instances of patent illegality, manifest arbitrariness, or lack of legislative competence. Presumption of constitutionality applies, and the burden of proving violation of fundamental rights lies on the challenger. Mere reduction in promotional avenues does not constitute a violation of conditions of service, as there is no vested right to promotion, only a right to be considered. (Paras 11, 16, 21, 51, 60, 63)

(B) Rule of Relaxation - Power of the State to relax service rules - The power to relax mandatory qualifying service criteria for promotion must be exercised for objective, fair, and just reasons in the public interest. Judicial review is circumscribed to ensuring such power is not exercised arbitrarily or for extraneous considerations. (Paras 26, 28, 74)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, serving as municipal officers, challenged the constitutional validity of service rules that equated their post with other municipal employees for purposes of promotion to a higher grade. They also challenged an administrative order granting a one-time relaxation of qualifying service duration for internal candidates to address a shortage of eligible officers.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the statutory rules were enacted within the competence of the state legislature and that the provision of multiple feeder cadres is a valid exercise of administrative discretion. There was no violation of fundamental rights, and the assertion that the two groups of employees were unequal was insufficient to invalidate the rules. The relaxation order was found to be a reasoned policy decision to ensure institutional efficiency.

Issues: Whether the inclusion of different categories of municipal employees in the same feeder cadre for promotion is unconstitutional, and whether the relaxation of qualifying service criteria was legally permissible.

Ratio Decidendi: The state possesses the prerogative to define service structures and promotional channels. As long as such rules are not manifestly arbitrary and maintain a rational nexus with administrative efficiency, they satisfy constitutional requirements. The court cannot substitute its wisdom for that of the policymaker.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.