Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs :-

“10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it’s kind perusal;

10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction and declare the Chhattisgarh Jail Non-Gazetted (Class-III Ministerial and Non-Ministerial) Services Recruitment Rules, 2022 as unconstitutional to the extent there is no provision for promotion from the post of Driver;

10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction commanding the respondents to make suitable provision for promotion from the post of Driver in jail department; and

10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a citizen of India and is entitled to the protection of all fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The petitioner is presently serving as a Driver in the Jail Department and is posted at Sub Jail, Mungeli. He was appointed on the post of Vehicle Driver on 27.05.2008 and joined his duties on 12.06.2008. Since the date of joining, the petitioner has been discharging his duties sincerely and has rendered more than sixteen years of unblemished service in the Jail Department. He further submits that the post of Driver was earlier governed by the Chhattisgarh Class-III (Ministerial and Non- Ministerial) Jail Services Recruitment Rules, 1974 (for short, ‘Rules of 1974’). Subsequently, the State Government framed the Chhattisgarh Jail Non-Gazetted (Class-III Ministerial and Non-Ministerial) Services Rules, 2022 (for short, ‘Rules of 2022’), which presently regulate the service conditions of the petitioner.

4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the Rules of 2022, the post of Driver is included in the Class-III Non-Ministerial cadre. However, despite being a part of the said cadre, no promotional avenue whatsoever has been provided for Drivers. As a result, an employee appointed as Driver remains on the same post throughout his entire service career without any opportunity of career advancement, irrespective of his experience, efficiency and length of service. He submits that Schedule-II, Part-A of the Rules of 2022 provides that 50% of the posts of Assistant Jail Superintendent (Pay Matrix Level-6) are to be filled by promotion through a competitive examination. Out of the said promotional quota, 40% has been earmarked for Warder staff, 5% for Ministerial staff and 5% for Teacher staff. However, no promotional quota has been provided for Drivers.

5. It is further contended by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that Teacher staff, like Drivers, belong to the non-ministerial Class-III cadre. Despite both categories forming part of the same class of employees, promotional opportunities have been provided to Teacher staff while Drivers have been completely excluded from the promotional channel. Such exclusion has no rational basis and creates an unreasonable classification amongst similarly situated Class-III non- ministerial employees. He also contended that the complete denial of promotional opportunities to Drivers results in stagnation throughout their service career and deprives them of any opportunity of professional growth. Such a classification neither serves any administrative purpose nor has any nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Rules. The impugned provision, therefore, creates an artificial distinction amongst empl