Advocates:
['AJAY SHRIVASTAVA', '', 'GOPAL PRASAD MATHUR', 'A G']

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPS No. 4955 of 2016

1. Chandraprakash S/o Shri Puniram Sahu, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village And

Post Tusma, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

2. Lalaram Sahu, S/o Shanker Lal Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village And

Post Kumhari Police Station Gidhouri, Tahsil Kasdol, Distirct Baloda Bazar

Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

3. Vijay Singh Mansar S/o Balram Singh, Mansar, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village

Parsada, P.O. Banari, Tahsil Akaltara Distirct Janjgir Champa Chhattisarh

---- Petitioners

Versus

•

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat,

Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya New Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

_____________________________________________________________________

For Petitioners

: Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate

For Respondent/State

: Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Additional Advocate General

_____________________________________________________________________

Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order on Board

Per, Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice

23.01.2019

1.

Petitioners have preferred the writ application to declare Rule 6(1)(a) of

Chhattisgarh Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre (Recruitment and Condition of Service)

Rule, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2012 Rule') to be ultra vires the

Constitution of India.

2.

On 17.08.2012, the 2012 Rule was notified in exercise of power conferred under

Section 70 sub-Section (1) as well as Section 53 sub-Section (1) read with

Section 95 sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayatraj Adhiniyam, 1993.

3.

The Rule in question was notified to recruit teachers at the Panchayat level

across the State with an effort to codify the law and bring some kind of surety to

the method of recruitment, appointment and their service conditions.

2

4.

The Rule under attack is Rule 6(1)(a) of the 2012 Rule which reads as

under :-

**6- HkrhZ dk rjhdk- & ¼1½ bu fu;eksa ds izkjaHk gksus ds i'pkr~

lsok esa HkrhZ fuEufyf[kr rjhdksa ls dh tk;sxh] vFkkZr~ %&

¼d½ esfjV }kjk ;k izfr;ksxh ijh{kk }kjk p;u ds ek/;e ls

vFkok jkT; 'kklu }kjk le;≤ ij tkjh fd;s

x;s vkns'k@funsZ'k ds vuqlkj lh/kh HkrhZ }kjk A**

5.

Submission of the counsel for the Petitioners is that in the earlier Rule of

2007, there was a provision that in case the number of applicants are less

than the advertised vacancies then the selection will be on the basis of merit,

but if the number of applicants are more than the vacancy, then a written

examination shall be conducted. However, to dilute the effect of such

process of selection, Rule 6(1)(a) has been incorporated where discretion

has been granted to the Panchayat to either make selections on the basis of

merit or competitive examination. This, according to the counsel for the

Petitioners is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

6.

To buttress his argument further, counsel submits that in actual working some

of the Panchayats had made selection of the candidates on merit and most of

the selected candidates happened to be from a private University, where

candidates are awarded more marks than a Government Institution and to

that extent, the merit position become inequitable. He further submits that

there are no standardizations in terms of course and conduct of examination

of various Educational Institutions or Universities and therefore, merit cannot

be judged on the basis of marks obtained by a candidate or awarded to him

from different Universities as there is great variance therein.

3

7.

Such submissions cannot become the basis for striking down a Rule or a

legislation, where power to make such legislation is not a matter of argument.

So far as violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is

concerned, Rule 6(1)(a) of the 2012 Rule provides that recruitment will be

done either on merit or