Chattisgarh High Court
Janu Vaishnaw vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 May, 2022
1
AFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 1081 of 2020
1. Nandkumar Gupta S/o Shri Tikaram Gupta Aged About 28 Years
Address - Village And Post Kadro, Tahsil Pathalgaon District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
2. Arun Kumar Navgwal S/o Shri Maheshwar Prasad Navgwal Aged
About 29 Years Address - Village Katangjor Post Dangsuwan, Tahsil
Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh
3. Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Madnu Ram Aged About 29 Years Address -
Village Bankheta Post Bhelwan, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
4. Anjana Yadav D/o Shri Umesh Kumar Yadav Aged About 28 Years
Address - H.No. 10, Ward No. 12, Madhubantoli Jashpur Nagar
District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
5. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Shivnarayan Aged About 27 Years Address -
Village Dudungjor Post Gala, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
6. Vinodanand S/o Shri Purnu Ram Aged About 29 Years Address -
Village Gala Post Gala, Tahsil Pathalgaon District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
7. Varsha Patel D/o Shri Narottam Sing Patel Aged About 22 Years
Address - Village Kansabel, Post Kansabel, Tahsil Kansabel, District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
8. Komal Patel S/o Shri Basant Patel Aged About 29 Years Address
Village And Post Ankira, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
9. Sumant Sai S/o Shri Bakatar Sai Aged About 28 Years Address
Village Sikirma, Post Menderbhar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh,
District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
10. Hemchand Sahu S/o Shri Shiv Prasad Sahu Aged About 27 Years
Address - Village And Post Sukhrapara, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
11. Durgawati Besra D/o Shri Dileswar Sai Aged About 25 Years
Address Village Sajapani, Post Sajapani, Tahsil Kansabel, District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
12. Basant Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Premnarayan Yadav Aged About 26
Years Address - Village Illa, Post Kilkila, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
13. Suraj Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Hatkishor Ram Yadav Aged About 32
Years Address Village And Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
2
14. Sundar Sai S/o Shri Saheshvar Sai Aged About 34 Years Address
Village Koranga-Bahala, Post Deori, Tahsil Kansabel, District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
15. Narendra Kumar Sai S/o Shri Jagaranath Sai Aged About 39 Years
Address Village Barjor, Post And Tahsil Kansabel District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
16. Anand Kumar Bhagat S/o Shri Ramdeo Bhagat Aged About 30 Years
Address Village Makarchuwan, Post Bagbahar, Tahsil Pathalgaon,
District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
17. Parmeshwar Painkra S/o Shri Ghanshyam Painkra Aged About 34
Years Address Village Bangaon (K), Post Farsatoli, Tahsil
Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh
18. Rajesh Kumar Painkra S/o Shri Jadhya Sai Painkra Aged About 33
Years Address Village Bangaon(K), Post Farsatoli, Tahsil
Pathalgaon, Districtr Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District: Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh
19. Jainandan Yadav S/o Shri Sukhram Yadaw Aged About 26 Years
Address Village Mudapara(Jahlipara), Post Pakargaon, Thana And
Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District: Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh
20. Sumitra Nag D/o Shri Baliram Aged About 27 Years Address Village
Mudabahala(Dhanupara), Post Kukargaon, District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh, District: Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
21. Deepak Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ragunandan Yadav Aged About 26
Years Address Village And Post Ludeg, Tahsil Pathalgaon District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District: Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
22. Suman Kumar Kurrey D/o Shri Josik Kurrey Aged About 33 Years
Address Police Line Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District:
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
23. Manoj Kumar Banjara S/o Shri Gannu Ram Aged About 36 Years
Address Village Kachhar Post Ludeg, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
24. Canesh Ram Sharathi S/o Shri Sukru Ram Sharathi Aged About 34
Years Address Village Kachhar Post Ludeg, Tahsil Pathalgaon,
District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
25. Ravindra Kumar S/o Shri Sardo Ram Aged About 33 Years Address
Village Budhadand, Poat Gala, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
26. Nishi Xalxo S/o Shri Nestor Xalxo Aged About 27 Years Address
Village Bangaon Post Pharsatoli, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh,
District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
27. Shauki Lal Nishad S/o Shri Sukhram Nishad Aged About 35 Years
Address Village Budhadand, Post Gala, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District
Jashpur, Chhattisagarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
28. Shaukee Lal Pradhan S/o Shri Shardo Ram Pradhan Aged About 35
Years Address Village Budhadand, Post Gala, Tahsil Pathalgaon,
District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
3
29. Dewnath Ram Nag S/o Shri Harihar Sai Nag Aged About 34 Years
Address Village Chhatasarai, Post Kadro, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
30. Avinash Yadav S/o Shri Dilbhanjan Yadav Aged About 26 Years
Address Village Jadamal, Post Lawakera, Tahsil Farsabahar, District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
31. Chitrekha D/o Shri Chainu Ram Aged About 27 Years Address
Village And Post Kansabel, Tahsil Kansabel, District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
32. Law Kumar Painkra S/o Shri Ayodya Sai Aged About 29 Years
Address Village Jurgum, Post Kurdeg, Tahsil Bagicha, District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
33. Dharmendra Kumar Lahare S/o Shri Sant Ram Aged About 26 Years
Address Village And Post Diwanpur, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
34. Rajendra Kuamr S/o Shri Sant Ram Aged About 28 Years Address
Village And Post Diwanpur, Tahsil Pathalgaon , District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
35. Surya Prakash Lakra S/o Shri Baiga Ram Aged About 29 Years
Address Village Kachhar(Bijapar), Post Ludeg, Thana Pathalgaon,
District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
36. Jagdew Singh Thakur S/o Shri Shiv Prasad Thakur Aged About 31
Years Address Village And Post Tamta, Tahsil And Thana
Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattigarh, District : Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh
37. Harikesh Yadav S/o Shri Bhuneshwar Yadav Aged About 25 Years
Address Village Katanjor, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur ,
Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
38. Manorama Sai D/o Shri Ishwar Nath Aged About 25 Years Address
Village Kerdega Tahsil Duldula, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh,
District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
39. Arun Jaiswal S/o Shri Radhe Shyam Aged About 28 Years Address
Village Harri, Post Umko, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh, District :
Balrampur, Chhattisgarh
40. Sachita Singh D/o Shri Yugeshwar Singh Aged About 28 Years
Address Village Bardand, Post And Tahsil Narayanpur, District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
41. Omprakash Sahu S/o Shri Ram Naresh Sahu Aged About 32 Years
Address Village Jamdei Post Kandrai Thana Jainagar, District
Jashpur , Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
42. Anil Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Krishna Prasad Gupta Aged About 26
Years Address Village And Post Jhikki Tahsil Bagicha District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
43. Durga Gupta D/o Shri Mahesh Gupta Aged About 24 Years Address
Village And Post Jhikki, Tahsil Bagicha District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
44. Rashmi Yadav D/o Girdhari Ram Yadav Aged About 25 Years
4
Address Darbari Toli, Tiwari Colony Jashpur Nagar, Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
45. Sumitra Bai D/o Shri Baijnath Aged About 22 Years Address Village
Madiyajhariya, Post Chrtba Tahsil Kansabel, District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
46. Keshav Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Kaushal Prasad Yadav Aged About
25 Years Address Mahapatra Colony Jashpur Nagar, District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
47. Dhansingh Ram S/o Shri Lilamber Aged About 28 Years Address
Village Kadobahar, Post Duldula Tahsil Duldula, District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
48. Alka Singh S/o Somaru Ram Singh Aged About 29 Years Address
Rachit Police Line Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh,
District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
49. Mukesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Siru Ram Yadav Aged About 23
Years Address Madhuwan Toli, D.P.S. Colony Jashpur Nagar,
District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
50. Ajay Kumar S/o Shri Shisay Ram Aged About 23 Years Address
Village And Post Sogda, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
51. Savita Yadav D/o Shri Khirsagar Yadav Aged About 22 Years
Address Village And Post Narayanpur, Tahsil Kunkuri, District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
52. Rohit Kumar S/o Shri Baldev Ram Aged About 28 Years Address
Village And Post Kusmi Tahsil Kusmi District Balrampur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh
53. Mamta Sai S/o Shri Ishwarnath Sai Aged About 27 Years Address
Village Kardega, Post Makribandha, Tahsil Duldula, District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
54. Nawal Kishor Chakrawarti S/o Shri Gouri Shankar Aged About 30
Years Address Village Sarukachhar(Pusra) Post Nariyardand Tahsil
Kansabel, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh
55. Jayanti Kumar Singh S/o Shri Yogeshwar Singh Aged About 24
Years Address Village And Post Makribandha, Tahsil Duldula,
District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
56. Champa Kanwar D/o Shri Mahendra Singh Kanwar Aged About 34
Years Address Village Gharipakhana Post Banjhiban Tahsil Podi
Uproda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
57. Deepika Kanwar D/o Shri Lal Singh Kanwar Aged About 31 Years
Address Village Daehan Para Jawali Tahsil Katghora District Korba,
Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
58. Harvansh Kumar S/o Shri Lala Ram Aged About 25 Years Address
Village Nanbanka, Post Rajkamma, Tahsil Pali District Korba,
Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
59. Dinesh Kumar Kanwae S/o Haridaynarayan Singh Kanwar Aged
About 28 Years Address Village Mohanpur, Post Sutarra, Tahsil
5
Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
60. Usha D/o Shri Om Prakash Aged About 26 Years Address - Mig-
1/96, Extn, Korba, Distirct Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba,
Chhattisgarh
61. Hemant Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ganesh Prasad Yadav Aged About
37 Years Address Village And Post Chaitma, Thana And Tahsil Pali,
District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
62. Bhim Dhurandhar S/o Shri Ram Singh Aged About 25 Years Address
- H.No. 86, Village Chondha, Post Nonbirra, Tahsil Pali, District
Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
63. Rajendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Narottam Ram Sahu Aged About 31
Years Address - Md - 20, Dipka Colony Grvra Project, District Korba,
Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
64. Anupa Tirkey D/o Dhri Tej Kumar Tirkey Aged About 29 Years
Address Lodam, Post And Tahsil Jashpur, District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
65. Gautam Dewangan S/o Shri Rati Ram Aged About 24 Years Address
Village And Post Bafna, Tahsil Kondagaon, District Kondagaon,
Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
66. Jitendra S/o Shri Tularam Dewangan Aged About 25 Years Address -
H.No. 167, Ward No. -09, Dewangan Para Bhagdeva, Chaipawand,
Post Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District :
Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
67. Shankar S/o Shri Rati Ram Aged About 25 Years Address Village
And Post Bafna, Thana Pali, Tahsil Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh,
District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
68. Virendra Kumar Diwan S/o Billoo Ram Diwan Aged About 28 Years
Address Village And Post Girola(Jdipara), Tahsil Kondagaon, District
Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
69. Ramprasad Dewangan S/o Shri Raydhar Ram Aged About 29 Years
Address Village And Post Mulmula Khaspara, Tahsil Kondagaon,
District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
70. Amit Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Tula Ram Aged About 28 Years
Address - 167, Dewangan Para Bhagdeva District Kondagaon,
Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
71. Mohan Prasad S/o Shri Agnoo Ram Aged About 26 Years Address -
206, Ward No. 17, Tendubhata, Post Arandi, Tahsil Keshkal, District
Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
72. Lakheshwar S/o Shri Mehattar Ram Aged About 25 Years Address -
16, Doctor Para, Village And Post Kusma, Tahsil Kondagaon, District
Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
73. Jasraj Pande S/o Shri Vijay Lal Pande Aged About 31 Years Address
Village And Post Kamla, Tahsil Kondagaon, District Kondagaon,
Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
74. Prachi Yadav D/o Shri Samnath Aged About 29 Years Address
Village Kondagaon, Post Kondagaon, Tahsil Kondagaon, District
Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
6
75. Mahesh Kumar Baghel S/o Shri Dharam Singh Baghel Aged About
28 Years Address - 177, Patelpara Barkai, District Kondagaon,
Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
76. Bashi Lal Yadav S/o Shri Balchand Yadav Aged About 28 Years
Address Village Bangaon, Post Bangaon, Tahsil Pharasgaon, District
Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
77. Omeshwar Sahu S/o Shri Budharu Ram Aged About 25 Years
Address - Village Piproud, Post Lakhanpur, Tahsil Charma, District
Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
78. Radha Korram D/o Shri Jalsingh Korram Aged About 28 Years
Address Village Bhiroud Nayapara, Tahsil Narayanpur, District
Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
79. Geetanjali Sahu D/o Shri Mehattar Ram Aged About 28 Years
Address Village Sarona, Tahsil Narharpur, District Kanker,
Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
80. Jayant Lal S/o Shri Manhagu Ram Aged About 29 Years Address
Village And Post Shahawada, Tahsil Charma, District Kanker,
Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
81. Kamal Kishor Sahu S/o Shri Tribhuwan Lal Aged About 28 Years
Address Village And Post Mawlipara, Tahsil Narharpur, District
Kanker , Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
82. Arun Kumar Surotiya S/o Shorha Ram Surotiya Aged About 28 Years
Addressv Village And Post Sarona, Tahsil Narharpur, District Kanker,
Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
83. Surendra Kumar Netam S/o Shri Devi Ram Netam Aged About 34
Years Address Village Bhiroud (Nayapara), Post Abhanpur, Tahsil
Narharpur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker,
Chhattisgarh
84. Parmeshwar S/o Shri Aadu Ram Aged About 32 Years Address
Village Bhoigaon, Post Khartha, Tahsil Charma, District Kanker,
Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
85. Mukesh Kumar Netam S/o Shri Bujju Ram Netam Aged About 31
Years Address Village Tumansar Post Useli, Tahsil Antagarh, District
Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
86. Arvind Kumar Verma S/o Shri Nohar Singh Verma Aged About 30
Years Address Village And Post Bhanpuri, Tahsil Bastar, District
Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
87. Ku. Sandhya Verma D/o Shri Nohar Singh Verma Aged About 28
Years Address Village And Post Bhanpuri, Tahsil Bastar, District
Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
88. Anil Kumar Khelade S/o Nakchheda Ram Khelade Aged About 35
Years Address Sanjay Para, Bhairamgarh, Tahsil Conony-1 Village
Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bijapur,
Chhattisgarh
89. Bhagwat Kashyap S/o Shri Banmalee Aged About 22 Years Address
Aawash Para, Bakawand District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District :
Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
7
90. Upendra Nag S/o Shri Prakash Aged About 28 Years Address Village
Tikralohga(Chidaipadar) Post Kolchur, District Bastar , Chhattisgarh,
District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
91. Keshar Nath S/o Shri Manmohan Singh Aged About 27 Years
Address Chitalanka (Rawatpara), Tahsil Dantewada, District
Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh
92. Piluram Dewangan S/o Shri Gulam Dewangan Aged About 32 Years
Address Village And Post Jaibel, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar,
Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
93. Pitambar Dewangan S/o Shri Gulam Dewangan Aged About 25
Years Address Village And Post Jaibel, Tahsil Bakawand, District
Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
94. Sumitra Baghel D/o Shri Billu Ram Baghel Aged About 26 Years
Address Village And Post Belar, Tahsil Lohandiguda, District Bastar,
Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
95. Lakhiram S/o Shri Phakeer Aged About 23 Years Address Village
Jaibel, Post Jaibel, Tehsil Bakawand, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh,
District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
96. Pankaj Kumar S/o Shri Dakendar Aged About 23 Years Address
Village Karpawand, Post Karpawand, Tahsil Bakawand, District
Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
97. Chandrasekhar Pandey S/o Shri Renudhar Pandey Aged About 36
Years Address Village And Post Asna, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District
Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
98. Shreya Lekam D/o Somnath Lekam Aged About 27 Years Address
Chandra Sekhar, Ward No. 09, Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
99. Lakhmi Kashyap D/o Shri Antu Ram Kashyap Aged About 28 Years
Address Chitrakut Road, Nakapara Village And Post Karanji, District
Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
100. Virendra Dewangan S/o Shri Sonuram Dewangan, Aged About 26
Years Address Village Chokawada, Post Dhanpunji, District Bastar,
Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
101. Subhashini Verma W/o Shri Anil Kaushik Aged About 27 Years
Address Abdul Kalam Ward, Hatkachora, Jagdalpur Bastar, District
Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
102. Dharmendra Patel S/o Shri Shanker Patel Aged About 24 Years
Address Patel Para, Raj Nagar Bastar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh,
District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
103. Hemant Kumar Acharya S/o Shri Ajay Kumar Acharya Aged About
32 Years Address - 88ga, Bhimadev Para, Asna, Bastar, District
Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
104. Amar Singh S/o Shri Nanhe Singh Aged About 33 Years Address Fd/
ra -11, Geedam Road, Suri Hotel, Jagdalpur, District Bastar,
Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
105. Romanchal Pandey S/o Shri Balram Pandey Aged About 33 Years
Address Village And Post Bade Jirakhal, Tahsil Bakawand, District
8
Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
106. Jitendra Prasad Joshi S/o Shri Jeevnath Joshi Aged About 30 Years
Address Village Karanji, Post Muli, Tahsil Bakawand , District Bastar,
Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
107. Shardev S/o Shri Kachru Aged About 27 Years Address Village And
Post Kodoli, Tahsil Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh,
District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh
108. Kamal Kant Jaiswal S/o Shri Rajkumar Jaiswal Aged About 24 Years
Address Village Mahuli, Post Biharpur, Tahsil Odgi, District Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
109. Shubham Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Narayan Aged About 26 Years
Address Village And Post Biharpur, Tahsil Odgi, District Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
110. Byas Jee Jaiswal S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Aged About 23 Years
Address Village Mahuli, Post Biharpur, Tahsil Odgi, District Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
111. Chetan Ram Rajwade S/o Baran Ram Rajwade Aged About 24
Years Address Chiknidabd, Rajkishor Nagar, Surajpur, District
Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
112. Ajay Prasad Patel S/o Shri Durga Prasad Patel Aged About 35 Years
Address Village Surta, Post Parsurampur, Tahsil Ramanujnar,
Districrt Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
113. Aswin Kumar S/o Vinod Kuamr Kushwaha Aged About 23 Years
Address Village And Post Banja, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
114. Om Prakash Gupta S/o Suraj Prasad Gupta Aged About 32 Years
Address Village Korandha, Post Jarhi, District Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
115. Vijay Kuamr Das S/o Shri Santosh Das Aged About 31 Years
Address Tarkeshwarpur, Umeshwarpur, Premnagar, District
Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
116. Pritam Das S/o Shri Chandan Das Aged About 27 Years Address
Village And Post Premnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, District :
Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
117. Ramendra Kumar S/o Shri Suresh Sahu Aged About 25 Years
Address Sakriya Khadgawa, Koriya, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh,
District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
118. Lavkush Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Shyam Lal Sahu Aged About 29
Years Address Sakriya Khadgawa, Koriya, District Koriya,
Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
119. Sanjay Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Jagdeesh Aged About 26 Years
Address Mandapara, Baikunthpur, Koriya, District Koriya,
Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
120. Suresh Kumar Prajapati S/o Shri Lal Chand Aged About 26 Years
Address 17/k, Madhyapara, Karonji, Surajpur, District Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
121. Mani Lal Sahu S/o Shri Ram Chetan Sahu Aged About 24 Years
9
Address - H. No. 63, Sahupara Banja District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh,
District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
122. Dilip Kumar Bek S/o Shri Simon Bek Aged About 25 Years Address
14, Ujalkachar, Kathotiya District Koriya, Cahhattisgarh, District :
Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
123. Dev Kumar S/o Shri Pran Singh Aged About 28 Years Address 01,
Kantelipara, Tamdand, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya
(Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
124. Parvesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Rama Sahankar Yadav Aged About
30 Years Address Village And Post Biharpur, Odgi, District Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
125. Laxman Prasad Sahu S/o Bhawer Lal Sahu Aged About 29 Years
Address Village Pampapur, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh,
District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
126. Anup Prajapati S/o Shri Kailash Ram Aged About 26 Years Address
Village Patepur, Post Jariya Manora, District Jaspur, Chhattisgarh,
District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
127. Sanjay Kuamr Gupta S/o Shri Jagdev Prasad Gupta Aged About 31
Years Address Village Chanchi, Post Baghima, Rajpur, District
Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur,
Chhattisgarh
128. Satish Kumar Jaiswal S/o Murlidhar Jasiwal Aged About 34 Years
Address Village Simdha, Post Kakna, Rajpur, District Balrampur
Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh
129. Vijay Kuamr Sahu S/o Shri Shiv Kumar Sahu Aged About 33 Years
Address Village Sakriya, Post Podi, Tahsil Khdgawa,district Koriya,
Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
130. Dev Kumari D/o Shri Rajaram Sahu Aged About 27 Years Address
Q.No. 360, Jarhi Urjanagar, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh,
District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
131. Hemlata Yadav D/o Shri Kameshwar Prasad Aged About 33 Years
Address Q. No. 419, Shivpur, Charcha, Koriya District Koriya,
Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
132. Vijay Narayan S/o Shri Rati Ram Aged About 24 Years Address 65,
Ghodipara, Ulkiya, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja
(Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
133. Roshan Kumar Patwa S/o Shri Sampat Prasad Patwa Aged About 28
Years Address - 88 , Sulsuli, Wadrafnagar, Balrampur, District
Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur,
Chhattisgarh
134. Abhinay Kuamr Patwa S/o Shri Mahendra Prasad Patwa Aged About
29 Years Address - 126, Mathkhaniypara, Sulsuli, Balrampur, District
Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur,
Chhattisgarh
135. Snehlata Sahu D/o Shri Lal Chand Sahu Aged About 25 Years
Address Kadampara, Pondi, Koriya District Koriya, Chhattisgarh,
District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
10
136. Akash Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Krishna Kumar Gupta Aged About 29
Years Address Kamari, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh
137. Nitin Tirkey S/o Shri Anand Kumar Tirkey Aged About 25 Years
Address - 19g, Sayar Rai, Hatapara, Raghunathpur, District Surguja,
Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
138. Satish Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Thakur Aged About 26
Years Address 245a, Patna Kot, Surajpur District Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
139. Amit Gurjar S/o Shri Ahok Gurjar Aged About 23 Years Address
Village Chendra, Post Dawna, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh,
District: Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
140. Durgawati Rajwade D/o Shri Shankar Ram Aged About 24 Years
Address Pachira, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, District :
Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
141. Achla Rajwade D/o Shri Chunamani Rajwade Aged About 29 Years
Address 107, Patel Para, Asdei, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh,
District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. Director Directorate of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPS No. 16 of 2021
1. Sushant Shekhar Dharai S/o Shri Sunil Kumar Dharai Aged About 26
Years R/o Village/post Salhedarai Tahsil Pithra District
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
2. Dand Khan S/o Salim Khan Ram Aged About 32 Years R/o Village
Siliary, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Chandani Verma D/o R.K. Verma Aged About 26 Years R/o F-42, Hill
View Colony Jspl Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District :
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration
Department State of Chhattisgarh Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya
Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Riapur, Chhattisgarh, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Secretary Department of Education State of Chhattisgarh Mahanadi
Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Riapur,
11
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPS No. 143 of 2022
1. Janu Vaishnaw S/o Shri Ajay Vaishnaw Aged About 28 Years R/o
250, Mandir Para, Akharar, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh,
District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
2. Anupama Tigga D/o Shri Sukhdeo Ram Aged About 29 Years R/o
Room No. 29/48, 3rd Battalion, Sankara, Durg Chhattisgarh.
3. Pawan Kumar Sahu D/o Shri Shyamlal Sahu Aged About 31 Years
R/o Meubhatha, Meu, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Department of
School Education, Mantralaya Bhawan, Atal Nagar , Naya Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Director Directorate of Public Instruction, Department of School
Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Block C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar , Nawa
Raipur , Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Joint Director Directorate of Public Instruction, Department of School
Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Block C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar , Nawa
Raipur , Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4. District Education Officer Bastar District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
5. District Education Officer Sarguja District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WPS No. 3005 of 2021
1. Srijan Prasad Rajwade S/o Shri Kashi Prasad Rajwade, Aged About
27 Years R/o Village Darhora, Post Chandoura, Tehsil Pratappur,
District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
2. Umesh Kumar, S/o Shri Manohar, Aged About 28 Years Address-
Ward No. 06 Bishnupur Bhatti Para, Baikunthpur Nagar, District
Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
3. Rekha Yadav, W/o Shri Narottam Kumar Yadaw, Aged About 30
Years Address- Village Tukupakhana, Raghunathpur, Pathalgaon,
District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
4. Gulshan Kumar, S/o Shri Suresh Kumar, Aged About 23 Years
Address- Village Khanda, Post Mahora, Thana Patna, Tehsil
Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District: Koriya
(Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
5. Vandana Rajwade, D/o Shri Sant Lal Rajwade, Aged About 25 Years
Address- Village Sardi, Post Charcha, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District
Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
6. Prabhawati, D/o Shri Ram Balak Sahu, Aged About 25 Years
Address- Ward No. 06 Sahu Para Salba, District Koriya Chhattisgarh,
District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
7. Hansmala Sahu, W/o Shri Dinesh Kumar, Aged About 32 Years
12
Address- Ward No. 05 Sahu Para, Dewadand, District Koriya
Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
8. Om Prakash, S/o Shri Vishram Singh, Aged About 25 Years
Address- Village Siltara, Tehsil Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh,
District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
9. Pramod Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Dev Singh Sahu, Aged About 25 Years
Address- Village Ward No. 05, Kekli Para, Kottara, District Kanker
Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
10. Tameshwar, S/o Shri Ram Sevak, Aged About 24 Years Address-
Juna Para Sardi, Ward No. 18 Sardi, Koriya District Koriya
Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
11. Raj Kumar, S/o Shri Ramawtar, Aged About 24 Years Address- 1201
Govt. Ramanuj Pratap Singh Dev P.G. College, Baikunthpur, District
Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
12. Deepak Yadav, S/o Shri Harihar Singh, Aged About 33 Years
Address- 148/1 Near Hanuman Mandir Village Adawal, District
Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
13. Harendra Kumar, S/o Shri Vishwanath Aged About 30 Years
Address- Sadk Para Village Pharsaguda, Bhanupuri, District Bastar
Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
14. Shail Sahu, W/o Shri Lalsay Sahu, Aged About 32 Years Address-
Village Devda, Post Sonarpal, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District :
Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. Director, Directorate of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPS No. 4805 of 2020
1. Umesh Kumar Shrivas S/o Shri Chhedilal Shrivas, Aged About 32 Years
R/o Ward No. 04, Sunarpara, Ratanpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2. Sanjiv Kumar Sahu, S/o Salik Ram Aged About 39 Years R/o Village
Jamgaon District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration
Department, State of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal
Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
13
2. Secretary, Department of Education, State of Chhattisgarh Mahanadi
Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPS No. 6864 of 2021
Arvind Kumar Singh S/o Shri Yogendra Prasad Singh Aged About 30
Years R/o Village Harrapara, Post Office Baikunthpur, District Korea
Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Director Directorate of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPPIL No. 29 of 2021
Krishna Kumar Navrang S/o Late Dashrath, Aged About 38 Years
Prantadhyaksh of Government Employees Welfare Association
Chhattisgarh, Working As Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary
School, Kodrabani, Block - Mungeli, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh.,
District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, General
Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal
Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. The Director, Directorate of Public Instruction, Atal Nagar, Nawa
Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate {In WP(S) No
WPS No. 1081/2020, WPS No. 6864/2021,
WPS No. 3005/2021}, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
Sahu, Advocate {In WPPIL No. 29/2021},
14
Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate {In WPS No.
4805/2020 and WPS No. 16/2021}, Ms.
Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate {In WPS No.
143/2022}
For Respondents/State : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Deputy Advocate General
For Intervenors : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Mr. Parag Kotecha
and Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocates {In WPS No.
1081/2020} and Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate
{In WPS No. 16/2021}.
Date of Hearing : 13.04.2022
Date of Order : 12.05.2022
Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Gautam Chourdiya, Judge
C A V Order
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Heard Mr. Ishan Verma, learned counsel, appearing for the
petitioners in WPS No. 1081/2020, WPS No. 6864/2021, WPS No.
3005/2021, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the
petitioners in WPPIL No. 29/2021, Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel,
appearing for the petitioners in WPS No. 4805/2020 and WPS No.
16/2021, Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, learned counsel, appearing for the
petitioners in WPS No. 143/2022, Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the respondent State as well as Mr. Ajay
Shrivastava, Mr. Parag Kotecha and Mr. C.J.K. Rao, learned counsel,
appearing for the intervenors, in WPS No. 1081/2020, and Mr. Ishan
Verma, learned counsel, appearing for the intervenors in WPS No.
16/2021.
15
2. The petitioners, in WP(S) No. 1081/2020, are residents of
different districts falling under Bastar and Surguja Division and of District
Korba of the State of Chattisgarh. The petitioner in WP(S) No. 6864/2021
is a resident of District Korba. The petitioners in WPS No. 3005/2021 are
the residents of districts falling under Bastar and Surguja Division of the
State of Chhattisgarh.
3. Bastar Division consists of Districts of Jagdalpur, Dantewada,
Bijapur, Narayanpur, Sukma, Kondagaon and Kanker, and Surguja
Division consists of Districts Koria, Surajpur, Balrampur, Ambikapur and
Jashpur.
4. In these three writ petitions, identical prayers are made which are as
follows:
"10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the impugned amended notification dated
30.01.2020 (Annexure P/1) as ultra vires to Article 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India.
10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct
the respondent authorities to follow the earlier
notification dated 28.05.2019; thereafter issue the
appointment orders as per merit.
10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant
any other relief(s)/writ(s), order(s) in favour of the
petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit and just
in the facts and circumstances of the case, including
awarding of the costs to the petitioner."
16
5. The petitioner in WPPIL No. 29/2021 is the Regional Head
(Prantadhyaksha) of the Government Employees Welfare Association. The
prayers made in this petition are as follows:
"10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
declare the impugned amendment notification
(Annexure P/1) as ultra vires to the provisions of sub-
para (1) of para 5 of the Fifth Schedule of the
Constitution of India as well as Rule 5 of the
Chattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of
Services) Rules, 1961 and set aside/quash the
impugned amendment notification (Annexure P/1).
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondents No. 2 and 3 to fill up the post of
Teacher cadre as per advertisement dated 09.03.2019
as per the notification dated 28.05.2019 by giving
opportunity to the local residents of Bastar, Surguja and
Korba Divisions from getting appointment to the
Teachers cadre post, in accordance with law.
10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit
and just in the facts and circumstances of the case
including award of the costs of the petition may be
given."
6. Annexure P/1, as referred to in the prayer portion of WPPIL No.
29/2021, is the amended notification dated 30.01.2020.
7. Prayers made in WPS No. 4805/2020 and WPS No. 16/2021
are identical and the same read as follows:
"10(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to held amendment in rule 5 of Chhattisgarh Civil
Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961
by way of notification (Annexure P/1) as ultra vires
being arbitrary and discriminatory, in the interest of
17
justice.
10(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to direct the respondent authorities to provide equal
opportunity in employment irrespective of their domicile,
in the interest of justice.
10(iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the
facts and circumstances of the case, may also be
granted."
8. The prayers made in WPS No. 143/2020 read as follows:
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call
for the entire records of the case for its kind perusal.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and be
pleased to quash the impugned notification dated
28.05.2019 issued by the Respondent State as being
violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and quash
the notification dated 23.09.2020 issued by the State
Government.
10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and quash
the notification issued by the Respondent No. 2
(Annexure P/11) as being without jurisdiction.
10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and direct
the Respondent No. 4 and 5 to issue appropriate
appointment order to the petitioners on the post of
Assistant Teacher (Science) after scrutinizing their
testimonials at the earliest.
10.6 That, any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble
Court deems fit and proper may kindly be granted in
18
favour of the petitioners."
9. Having regard to the challenge made and the reliefs sought for,
the 7 writ petitions can be divided into two categories: one category
comprising of WPS No. 1081/2020, 6864/2020, 3005/2021 and WPPIL No.
29/2021, wherein, broadly, reservation in service on the basis of residence
in scheduled areas is canvassed and the second category comprising of
WPS No. 4805/2020, 16/2021 and 143/2022, wherein the opposite view is
taken. For the purpose of the first category, pleadings in WPS No.
1081/2020 is taken into consideration. Facts
which are in addition to what
is stated in the other three writ petitions including in the WPPIL No.
29/2021, will also be taken note of.
10. It is pleaded that the General Administration Department had
issued a notification on 17.01.2012 providing that in the Districts falling
under Bastar and Surguja Division of the State of Chhattisgarh, only local
residents shall be eligible for recruitment to the Class-III and Class- IV
posts of the District cadre for a period of two years with effect from
17.01.2012 to 16.01.2014. The aforesaid notification was extended for a
period of one year from 17.01.2014 to 16.01.2015 by a notification dated
19.05.2014. The term of the notification was again extended for a period of
two years from 17.01.2015 to 16.01.2017 by a notification dated
10.03.2015 and then again extended for a further period of two years from
17.01.2017 to 31.12.2018 by a notification dated 25.02.2017.
11. An advertisement dated 09.03.2019 was issued by the Director,
Directorate of Public Instructions, Raipur, for filling up 14,580 posts of
teachers out of which 4,479 posts were reserved for the Districts falling
under Bastar and Surguja Divisions and District Korba.
12. After issuance of the advertisement, the General Administration
Department had extended the term of the original notification dated
17.01.2012 for a period of three years with effect from 01.01.2019 to
31.12.2021 by a notification dated 28.05.2019.
13. Some of the petitioners had appeared in the written test
conducted by the Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (for short,
CGVYAPAM'), for the post of Teacher (Biology and Maths) and some for
the post of Assistant Teacher (Science) and (Laboratory). In WPS No.
6864/2020, it is stated that out of 14,580 posts, 2,207 posts of Assistant
Teachers were reserved for the Districts falling under the Bastar and
Surguja Division. The petitioners in WPS No. 6864/2020 had participated
for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science) and had cleared the
examination. The petitioners, in WPC No. 3005/2021, had participated in
the examination for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science) and
(Laboratory) and had cleared the same.
14. On 04.01.2020, the Director, Directorate of Public Instructions
had sent a letter to the District Education Officers (for short, DEOs) except
the DEOs falling under Bastar and Surguja Division and District of Korba
for document verification for the post in the Assistant Teacher cadre. Later
on, the General Administration Department, by a notification dated
30.01.2020 amended the notification dated 28.05.2019, which laid down
that in the Districts falling under Bastar and Surguja Division and District of
Korba, only local residents would be eligible for recruitment in Class III and
Class IV posts of District cadre, providing that the notification dated
28.05.2019 shall not affect the advertisement dated 09.03.2019 issued by
the School Education Department for the recruitment of 14,580 Teacher
cadre posts.
15. It is also pleaded that by notification dated 05.03.2019, the
Government of Chhattisgarh had framed Rules called the Chhattisgarh
School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre)
Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019, wherein in Schedule I, it is
mentioned that the post of Teachers and Assistant Teachers are Class III
posts.
16. In the response filed by the State, it is stated that the scheduled
areas have a special designation under the Constitution of India and the
essence of it lies in paragraphs 2 and 5 of the Fifth Schedule. In the
scheduled areas, the Governor can exercise powers as enumerated under
paragraph 5(1) of Fifth Schedule and in exercise of such power, Rule 5 of
the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules,
1961 (for short, 'the Rules of 1961') was modified. It is pleaded that when
the advertisement dated 09.03.2019 was issued, there was no notification
giving benefit of reservation to the local residents of the Districts falling
under Bastar and Surguja Division, and therefore, no reservation was
extended to any of the candidates in the said advertisement for which the
last date of submission of application was fixed 25.04.2019. It was only
after issuance of the advertisement, the notification dated 28.05.2019 was
issued giving retrospective effect from 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2021 in respect
of Bastar and Surguja Division and also including the District of Korba.
17. It is not very clear as to whether the petitioners in WPS No.
4805/2020 and WPS No. 16/2021 had participated in the recruitment
process pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.03.2019. However, a
statement is made that the impugned amendment dated 28.05.2019 would
deprive them from applying as the petitioners are the residents of the
Districts other than Korba and the Districts falling in the Bastar and Surguja
Division. It is pleaded that the impugned amendment would adversely
affect their rights to apply and get appointed in respect of the posts falling
in the said Districts, thus, affecting their employment opportunities in the
aforesaid areas.
18. In WPS No. 143/2020, it is pleaded that the petitioners had
applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science) as 4000 posts of
Assistant Teacher (Science) were to be filled up in the entire State of
Chhattisgarh out of which 20 posts of Assistant Teacher (Science) were to
be filled up in the Surguja District. The petitioners have been declared
successful in the written examination conducted by the CGVYAPAM.
19. Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner in
WPS No. 143/2022 submits that the impugned notification dated
28.05.2019 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as
residents of the same State are being deprived of securing public
employment in respect of Class III and Class IV posts in the Scheduled
Districts thereby violating the principles of equal opportunity to be
guaranteed by the State in the matters of public employment. It is
submitted that the impugned notification has resulted in 100% reservation
in favour of the candidates of scheduled areas which cannot be sustained
in law. In this connection, she places reliance on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, reported in (1992)
Supp 3 SCC 217. Ms. Ali submits that on the basis of non-obstante clause
in paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, the Governor
cannot override the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution and there cannot be 100% reservation based upon residence,
so as to make only the residents of a particular area to be eligible for
appointment to a public post. It is also submitted that as there was no
notification extending the notification dated 17.01.2012 when the
advertisement dated 09.03.2019 was issued, retrospective extension of the
same with effect from 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2021 is illegal and cannot be
sustained. It is submitted by Ms. Ali that exercise of powers by the
Governor under paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule does not extend to
subordinate legislation and therefore, the Governor could not have
modified in any manner the provisions of the Rules of 1961 which is a rule
framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. She relies on the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Chebrolu Leela
Prasad Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh , reported in 2020 SCC OnLine
SC 383, Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Others ,
reported in (2002) 6 SCC 562, and a judgment of the Full Bench of the
Jharkhand High Court in Soni Kumari & Others v. State of Jharkhand &
Others, WPC No. 1387/2017, decided on 21.08.2020. She also relies on
the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.V.S.
Narasimha Rao & Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Another ,
reported in (1969) 1 SC 839, Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India &
Others, reported in (1984) 3 SCC 654, State of Orissa & Others v.
Sudhir Kumar Biswal & Others, reported in (1994) Supp 3 SCC 245,
Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd v. CG Power and
Industrial Solutions Limited, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 383 :
(2021) 11 SCC 408, Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural
Development Bank Ltd v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies , reported in
2022 SCC OnLine SC 28.
20. Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners in
WPS No. 4805/2020 and WPS No. 16/2021, has endorsed the
submissions of Ms. Ali.
21. Three intervention applications were filed in WPS No.
1081/2020. Mr. Parag Kotecha, who is a counsel in respect of one
intervention application submits that in view of the order dated 23.09.2021
clarifying that the interim order dated 24.02.2020 passed in WPS No.
1081/2020 shall apply in respect of District Cadre posts i.e. the posts of
Assistant Teacher and shall not affect the recruitment of Teachers, which
are Division Cadre posts, the petitioners in the intervention application
have obtained relief as they had applied for the post of Teacher.
22. Mr. C.J.K.Rao, learned counsel for some of the intervenors has
adopted the arguments advanced by Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali and Mr. Ajay
Shrivastava in WPS No. 4805/2022, 16/2021 and 143/2022.
23. Mr. Ishan Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
in WPS No. 1081/2020, 3005/2021 and 6864/2021, submits that the
notification dated 17.01.2012 was issued for advancement of the residents
of tribal areas in the State of Chhattisgarh and to safeguard and secure
government employment in their favour. It is submitted that the
respondents cannot alter or amend the criteria to change the rules of the
game after the process of selection had begun. He submits that although
other advertisements for recruitment were issued during the relevant
period, by the amended notification dated 30.01.2020, exception was
carved out only in respect of the advertisement dated 09.03.2019 and
therefore, the classification made to take out the advertisement dated
09.03.2019 beyond the purview of the notification dated 28.05.2019 is
arbitrary and illegal, there being no intelligible differentia between the
aforesaid advertisement and the other advertisements. He places reliance
on paragraphs 27, 32 to 36, 49 and 52 in Shri Sitaram Sugar Company
Limited & Another v. Union of India & Others , reported in (1990) 3 SCC
223, on paragraph 20 in Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India & Others ,
reported in (2003) 2 SCC 673 and on paragraph 33 in Kallakkurichi Taluka
Retired Officials Association, Tamil Nadu & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu,
reported in (2013) 2 SCC 772.
24. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the
petitioners in WPPIL No. 29/2021, while endorsing the submissions of Mr.
Ishan Verma, points out that in WPS No. 143/2022, notification dated
17.01.2012 is not put to challenge.
25. Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing
for the respondents submits that post of Lecturer and Teacher are Class II
posts for which notification dated 17.01.2012 is not applicable. He has
submitted that there is no merit in the contention that the notification dated
17.01.2012 and the subsequent notifications extending the notification
dated 17.01.2012 as illegal, arbitrary as the notifications had been issued
by the Governor in exercise of powers under paragraph 5 of the Fifth
Schedule of the Constitution of India. He has also submitted that as the
notification dated 28.05.2019 invoking paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule
of the Constitution of India had been issued giving retrospective effect from
01.01.2019 to 31.12.2021 subsequent to issuance of advertisement dated
09.03.2019, considering that the notification dated 28.05.2019 would
change the eligibility criteria laid down in the advertisement dated
09.03.2019, notification dated 30.01.2020 was issued amending the
notification dated 28.05.2019 to the extent that the notification dated
28.05.2019 would not affect the advertisement dated 09.03.2019. He has
submitted that, in substance, as the rules of the game cannot be changed,
the notification dated 30.01.2020 came to be issued as pursuant to the
advertisement dated 09.03.2019, the selection process had commenced. It
is further submitted that there was no existing right in favour of the
residents in Division of Bastar and Surguja and the District of Korba for the
Class III and Class IV posts that they alone would be entitled to participate
in the selection process when the advertisement dated 09.03.2019 was
issued.
26. Mr. Pali submits that no other advertisement was issued during
the relevant period under which the residents of the entire State of
Chhattisgarh were allowed to take part in the selection process in respect
of Class III and Class IV posts.
27. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and have perused the materials on record.
28. Rules of 1961 was issued in exercise of powers conferred
under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India for regulating the
recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public
services and posts in the State of Chhatisgarh. The relevant part of Rule 5
of the Rules of 1961 reads as follows:
"5. Eligibility for appointment. - A candidate for
appointment to a service or post must be either -
(a) a citizen of India; or
(b) a subject of Sikkim; or
(c) a person of Indian origin who has migrated from
Pakistan with intention of permanently settling in India; or
(d) a subject of Nepal or of Portugese or French territory in
India. "
29. Part X of the Constitution of India is devoted to scheduled and
tribal areas. Article 244(1) of the Constitution provides that the provisions
of the Fifth Schedule shall apply to the administration and control of the
Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in any State other than the States
of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. Article 244(2) of the
Constitution provides that the provisions of the Sixth Schedule shall apply
to the administration of the tribal areas in the States of Assam, Meghalaya,
Tripura and Mizoram.
30. What is a scheduled area is laid down in Part 'C' under
paragraph 6 of the Fifth Schedule. Paragraph 6 provides that in the
Constitution, the expression 'scheduled areas' means such areas as the
President may by order declare to be scheduled areas.
31. Paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule reads as follows:
"5. Law Applicable to scheduled areas.--(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Constitution the Governor may by Public
notification direct that any particular Act of
Parliament of the legislature of the State shall not apply
to a scheduled area or any part thereof in the State or
shall apply to a scheduled area or any part thereof in
the State subject to such exceptions and modifications
as he may specify in the notification.
(2) The Governor may make regulations for the peace
and good government of any area in a State which is
for the time being a scheduled area.
In particular and without prejudice to the generality of
the foregoing power, such regulations may--
(a) prohibit or restrict the transfer of land by or among
members of the scheduled tribes in any such area;
(b) regulate the allotment of land to members of the
scheduled tribes in such areas;
(c) regulate the carrying on of business as money-lender
by persons who lend money to members of the
scheduled tribes such areas.
(3) In making any regulation as is referred to in sub-
paragraph (2) of this paragraph, the Governor may
repeal or amend any Act of Parliament or of the
Legislature of the State or any existing law which is for
the time being applicable to the area in question.
(4) All regulation made under this paragraph shall be
submitted forthwith to the President and until
assented to by him shall have no effect.
(5) No regulation shall be made under this paragraph
unless the Governor making the regulation has in the
case where there is a Tribes Advisory Council for the
State, consulted such Council."
32. At the outset, it is appropriate to reproduce the notification
dated 17.01.2012, which reads as under :
"NOTIFICATION
Raipur, dated 17/01/2012
"No. F1-1/2012/1-3: In exercise of the powers conferred by the
provisions by sub-para 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the
Constitution of India, the Governor of Chhattisgarh, hereby,
directs that the provisions regarding "eligibility for appointment"
mentioned in rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General
Conditions of Service) Rule, 1961 made by the State
Government under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, shall
be deemed to be modified and enforced up to the extend as
specified hereinafter, namely: -
"Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or any other
Act, Order, Direction, Rules or Law for the time being in force,
only local residents of the districts falling under Baster and
Surguja Division, shall be eligible for recruitment to the
vacancies arising in Class III and Class IV posts of the district
cadre in various departments of the concerned districts, for a
period of two years from the date of issue of this Notification.
By order and in the name of the
Governor of Chhattisgarh
Sd/-
(Nidhi Chibbar)
Secretary,
Government of Chhattisgarh,
General Administration Department"
33. A perusal of the above would go to show that by the aforesaid
notification issued by the Government under paragraph 5 of the Fifth
Schedule to the Constitution of India, Rule 5 of the Rules of 1961 was
modified providing that only local residents of the districts falling under
Baster and Sarguja Division, shall be eligible for recruitment to the
vacancies arising in Class III and Class IV posts of the district cadre in
various departments of the concerned districts, for a period of two years
from the date of issue of this Notification.
34. The notification dated 28.05.2019 reads as follows:
"Atal Nagar, the 28th May, 2019
NOTIFICATION
No. F1-1/2012/1-3. - Whereas, in exercise of the
powers conferred by sub-para 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the
Constitution of India, the Governor of Chhattisgarh, modified
the provision regarding "eligibility for appointment" mentioned
in rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions
of Service) Rules, 1961 made by the Sate Government under
Article 309 of the Constitution of India vide Notification No. F I-
1/2012/1-3, Dated 17th January, 2012, ordered that
"Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or any other
Act, Order, Direction, Rules of Law for the time being in force,
only local residents of the districts falling under baster and
Sarguja Division, shall be eligible for recruitment to the
vacancies arising in Class III and Class IV posts of the district
cadre in various departments of the concerned districts, for a
period of two years from the date of issue of the said
Notification";
And Whereas, the said notification was issued on 17 th
January, 2012 for a period of two years and was in force till 16 th
January, 2014:
And Whereas, the term of the said notification was
extended for a period of one year i.e. from 17 th January, 2014
to 16th January, 2015 vide Notification No F1-1/2012/1-3, Dated
19th May, 2014; and again, the term of the said Notification was
extended for a period of two years i.e. from 17 th January, 2015
to 16th January, 2017 vide Notification No. F1-1/2012/1-3,
Dated 10th March, 2015; and for a period of two years i.e. from
17th January, 2017 to 31st December, 2018 vide Notification No.
F1-1/2012/1-3, Dated 25th February, 2017;
And Whereas, again it has become necessary to
extend the term of the said Notification for a further period of
three years and it shall also extend for the residents of Korba
District;
Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-para (1) of para 5 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution
of India, the Governor of Chhattisgarh, hereby, directs that
modification made by the said Notification in the rule 5 of the
Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services)
Rules, 1961 shall remain continuously in force for a further
period of three years i.e. from 1 st January, 2019 to 31st
December, 2021 and shall also extend to the residents of
Korba District.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Chhattisgarh
KAMALPREET SINGH, Secretary"
35. By the aforesaid notification, in essence, notification dated
17.01.2012 was extended for a period of three years from 01.01.2019 to
31.12.2021. It is noticed that the district of Korba was also brought within
the aforesaid notification apart from districts falling under Bastar and
Sarguja Division.
36. The notification dated 30.01.2020 reads as follows:
"Atal Nagar, the 28th May, 2019
NOTIFICATION
No. F1-1/2012/1-3. - Whereas, in exercise of the
powers conferred by Sub-Para (1) of para 5 of the Fifth
Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Governor of
Chhattisgarh, hereby, makes the following amendment in
Notification No. F1-1/2012/1-3, dated 28th May, 2019 relating to
the provision regarding eligibility for appointment specified in
rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1961 made by the State Government under
Article 309 of the Constitution of India, namely:-
AMENDMENT
In the said notification, -
1. After the last para, for the punctuation full stop ".", the
punctuation colon ":" shall be substituted and
2. After the last para, the following shall be added, namely: -
"Provided that, this notification shall not affect the
advertisement number/ estt/ advertisement/ direct recruitment/
2019/ 422-PA, Atal Nagar, dated 09-03-2019 issued by the
School Education Department for the recruitment of 14580
teacher cadre posts.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Chhattisgarh.
KAMALPREET SINGH, Secretary."
37. The above notification dated 28.05.2019 has provided that the
notification dated 28.05.2019 shall not affect the advertisement dated
09.03.2019.
38. Though Mr. Verma has submitted that by amendment dated
30.01.2020, only one advertisement, namely, the advertisement dated
19.03.2019, had been taken out from the purview of the notification dated
28.05.2019 while not including other advertisements issued during the
interregnum, the submission is not well-founded.
39. The petitioner in WPS No.1081/2020, by means of an
application for taking documents on record, had placed certain
advertisements issued during the relevant period from 01.01.2019 to
29.05.2019. A perusal of the said advertisements would go to show that
the applications were invited not from the candidates all over the State but
was confined to the candidates belonging to the scheduled areas. No
advertisement has been placed by the petitioner demonstrating that there
was any other advertisement issued during the relevant period enabling
candidates from all over the State to apply in respect of Class III and Class
IV posts including in respect of posts falling within the Bastar and Surguja
Division and the District of Korba. It is, however, not understood on what
basis the advertisements restricting candidature of the candidates
belonging to the scheduled districts was permitted as apparently at the
relevant point of time, there was no notification extending the original
notification dated 17.01.2012. However, this Court will not dilate further on
this subject.
40. In Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court laid down that any act of the repository of power, whether
legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial, is open to challenge if it is
in conflict with the Constitution or the governing act or the general
principles of the law of the land or it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that
no fair minded authority could ever have made it.
41. In Onkar Lal Bajaj (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid
down that unequals cannot be clubbed and that an arbitrary exercise of
power and order passed without any application of mind deserves to be
quashed.
42. In Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Officials Association, Tamil
Nadu & Others (supra), at paragraph 33, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid
down that a valid classification is based on a just objective and that a
classification to be valid must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the
distinguishing rationale has to be based on just objective and secondly, the
choice of differentiating one set of persons from another must have a
reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. Thus, a valid
classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which has a rational
relationship with the object sought to be achieved.
43. The judgments cited by Mr. Ishan Verma have no application in
the facts of the case.
44. In Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra), at paragraph 5, it was observed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that though Article 15 (1) and (2) bars
discrimination on grounds not only of religion, race, caste or sex but also of
place of birth, Article 16 (2) goes further and provides that no citizen shall
on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth,
residence or any of them be ineligible for or discriminated against in state
employment. So far as employment under the state, or any local or other
authority is concerned, no citizen can be given preference nor can any
discrimination be practiced against him on the ground only of residence. It
would thus appear that residential requirement would be unconstitutional
as a condition of eligibility for employment or appointment to an office
under the State or under any local or other authority within the State or any
corporation, such as a public sector corporation which is an instrumentality
or agency of the State. But Article 16 (3) provides an exception to this rule
by laying down that Parliament may make a law "prescribing, in regard to a
class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the
government of, or any local or other authority, in a state or union territory,
any requirement as to residence within that state or union territory prior to
such employment or appointment". Parliament alone is given the right to
enact an exception to the ban on discrimination based on residence and
that too only with respect to positions within the employment of a State
Government. It is further laid down that wholesale reservation on the basis
of domicile or residence is unconstitutional and void as being violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution.
45. In Kailash Chand Sharma (supra), at paragraphs 13 and 14, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"13. Before proceeding further we should steer clear of
a misconception that surfaced in the course of
arguments advanced on behalf of the State and some
of the parties. Based on the decisions which
countenanced geographical classification for certain
weighty reasons such as socio-economic
backwardness of the area for the purpose of
admissions to professional colleges, it has been
suggested that residence within a district or rural
areas of that district could be a valid basis for
classification for the purpose of public employment as
well. We have no doubt that such a sweeping
argument which has the overtones of parochialism is
liable to be rejected on the plain terms of Article 16(2)
and in the light of Art. 16(3). An argument of this
nature flies in the face of the peremptory language of
Article 16 (2) and runs counter to our constitutional
ethos founded on unity and integrity of the nation.
Attempts to prefer candidates of a local area in the
State were nipped in the bud by this Court since long
past. We would like to reiterate that residence by itself
be it be within a State, region, district or lesser area
within a district cannot be a ground to accord
preferential treatment or reservation, save as provided
in Article 16(3). It is not possible to compartmentalize
the State into Districts with a view to offer employment
to the residents of that District on a preferential basis.
At this juncture it is appropriate to undertake a brief
analysis of Article 16.
14. Article 16 which under clause (1)
guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in
matters relating to employment or appointment to any
office under the State reinforces that guarantee by
prohibiting under clause (2) discrimination on the
grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent,
place of birth, residence or any of them. Be it noted
that in the allied Article 15, the word 'residence' is
omitted from the opening clause prohibiting
discrimination on specified grounds. Clauses (3) and
(4) of Article 16 dilutes the rigour of clause (2) by (i)
conferring an enabling power on the Parliament to
make a law prescribing the residential requirement
within the State in regard to a class or classes of
employment or appointment to an office under the
State and (ii) by enabling the State to make a
provision for the reservation of appointments or posts
in favour of any backward class of citizens which is
not adequately represented in the services under the
State. The newly introduced clauses (4-A) and (4-B),
apart from clause (5) of Article 16 are the other
provisions by which the embargo laid down in Article
16 (2) in somewhat absolute terms is lifted to meet
certain specific situations with a view to promote the
overall objective underlying the Article. Here, we
should make note of two things: firstly, discrimination
only on the ground of residence (or place of birth) in
so far as public employment is concerned is
prohibited; secondly, Parliament is empowered to
make the law prescribing residential requirement
within a State or Union Territory, as the case may be,
in relation to a class or classes of employment. That
means, in the absence of parliamentary law, even the
prescription of requirement as to residence within the
State is a taboo. Coming to the first aspect, it must be
noticed that the prohibitory mandate under Article
16(2) is not attracted if the alleged discrimination is on
grounds not merely related to residence, but the
factum of residence is only taken into account in
addition to other relevant factors. This, in effect, is the
import of the expression 'only'.
46. In A.V.S. Narasimha Rao & Others (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the context of Article 16 of the Constitution of India,
observed at paragraphs 6 and 9 as follows:
"6. The legislative power to create residential
qualification for employment is thus exclusively
conferred on Parliament. Parliament can make any
law which prescribes any requirement as to residence
within the State or Union territory prior to employment
or appointment to an office in that State or Union
territory. Two questions arise here. Firstly, whether
Parliament', while prescribing the requirement, may
prescribe the requirement of residence in a particular
part of the State and, secondly, whether Parliament
can delegate this function by making a declaration and
leaving the details to be filled in by the rule making
power of the Central or State Governments.
xxx xxx xxx
9. The claim for supremacy of Parliament is
misconceived. Parliament in this, as in other matters,
is supreme only in so far as the Constitution makes it.
Where the Constitution does not concede supremacy,
Parliament must act within its appointed functions and
not transgress them. What the Constitution says is a
matter for construction of the language of the
Constitution. Which is the proper construction of the
two suggested? By the first clause equality of
opportunity in employment or appointment to an office
is guaranteed. By the second clause, there can be no
discrimination, among other things, on the ground of
residence. Realising, however, that sometimes local
sentiments may have to be respected or sometimes
an inroad from more advance States into less
developed States may have to be prevented, and a
residential qualification may, therefore, have to be
prescribed, the exception in clause (3) was made.
Even so, that clause spoke of residence within the
State. The claim of Mr. Setalvad that Parliament can
make a provision regarding residence in any particular
part of a State would render the general prohibition
lose all its meaning. The words 'any requirement'
cannot be read to warrant something which could
have been said more specifically. These words bear
upon the kind of residence or its duration rather than
its location within the State. We accept the argument
of Mr. Gupte that the Constitution, as it stands, speaks
of a whole State as the venue for residential
qualification and it is impossible to think that the
Constituent Assembly was thinking of residence in
Districts, Taluqas, cities, towns or villages. The fact
that this clause is an exception and came as an
amendment must dictate that a narrow construction
upon the exception should be placed as indeed the
debates in the Constituent Assembly also seem to
indicate. We accordingly reject the contention of Mr.
Setalvad seeking to put a very wide and liberal
construction upon the words 'any law' and 'any
requirement'. These words are obviously controlled by
the words 'residence within the State or Union
territory' which words mean what they say, neither
more nor less. It follows, therefore, that Section 3 of
the Public Employment (Requirement as to
Residence) Act, 1957, in so far as it relates to
Telangana (and we say nothing about the other parts)
and Rule 3 of the Rules under it are ultra vires the
Constitution."
47. In Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (supra), amongst others, the
following questions had arisen for consideration:
"(1) What is the scope of paragraph 5(1), Schedule V
to the Constitution of India?
(a) Does the provision empower the Governor to
make a new law?
(b) Does the power extend to subordinate legislation?
(c) Can the exercise of the power conferred therein
override fundamental rights guaranteed under
Part III?
(d) Does the exercise of such power override any
parallel exercise of power by the President under
Article 371D?
(2) Whether 100% reservation is permissible under
the Constitution?
(3) Whether the notification merely contemplates a
classification under Article 16(1) and not reservation
under Article 16(4))?"
48. While considering as to whether 100% reservation is
permissible under the Constitution, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
as follows:
"127. The 100% reservation would amount to
unreasonable and unfair and cannot be termed
except as unfair and unreasonable. Thus, we are of
the considered opinion that providing 100%
reservation to the scheduled castes and scheduled
tribes were not permissible. The Governor in the
exercise of the power conferred by para 5(1) of the
Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, cannot provide a
100% reservation.
131. The reason assigned that reservation was to
cover impetus in the scheduled areas in the field of
education and to strengthen educational infrastructure
is also equally bereft of substance. By depriving
opportunity to the others, it cannot be said that any
impetus could have been given to the cause of
students and effective education, and now that could
have been strengthened. The provisions of 100
percent reservation are ignoring the merit. Thus, it
would weaken the educational infrastructure and the
merit and the standard of education imparted in the
schools. Educational development of students cannot
be made only by a particular class of teachers
appointed by providing reservation, ignoring merit in
toto. The ideal approach would be that teachers are
selected based on merit.
133. There were no such extraordinary circumstances
to provide a 100 percent reservation in Scheduled
Areas. It is an obnoxious idea that tribals only should
teach the tribals. When there are other local residents,
why they cannot teach is not understandable. The
action defies logic and is arbitrary. Merit cannot be
denied in toto by providing reservations.
134. A reservation that is permissible by protective
mode, by making it 100 percent would become
discriminatory and impermissible. The opportunity of
public employment cannot be denied unjustly to the
incumbents, and it is not the prerogative of few. The
citizens have equal rights, and the total exclusion of
others by creating an opportunity for one class is not
contemplated by the founding fathers of the
Constitution of India. Equality of opportunity and
pursuit of choice under Article 51-A cannot be
deprived of unjustly and arbitrarily...... "
49. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted above,
it is impermissible for the Governor in the exercise of power conferred
under paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution to provide
100% reservation in respect of posts falling within the scheduled areas in
favour of only the local residents of the scheduled areas.
50. At paragraphs 52 and 54, while dealing with the question of
scope of paragraph 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed as under:
" 52. The exceptions and modifications are
created by the law, which is already applicable in the
area. It is not the formulation of a new law which is
contemplated under Para 5(1) of Schedule V. No new
law can be formulated while exercising power under
Para 5(1) of Schedule V. The power of modification
cannot extend to rewriting the entire statute. The
power cannot be used to supplant the law, which is
applicable. The law has to be applied only with
exceptions or modifications. It cannot totally
supersede the existing law, which is wholly opposed
to the idea of applicable law as in that case it would
tantamount to the new law and not the modification or
exception or creation of exceptions or modifications
to the applicable law. The object and substance of
law applicable cannot be changed within the purview
of Para 5(1), though the applicability of applicable law
can be excluded. In case the Governor decides the
law to remain applicable, he has the power only to
create exceptions and to modify the same, not to
create a new one juxtaposed to the same applicable
law.
xxx xxx xxx
54. We are of the opinion that the
Governor's power to make new law is not available in
view of the clear language of Para 5(1), Fifth
Schedule does not recognise or confer such power,
but only power is not to apply the law or to apply it
with exceptions or modifications. Thus, notification is
ultra vires to Para 5(1) of Schedule V of the
Constitution."
51. The notification dated 17.01.2012 and the other notifications
extending the said notifications demonstrate that Rule 5 of the Rules of
1961 was modified providing that for recruitment to the vacancies arising in
Class III and Class IV posts of the District Cadre of various departments of
the District falling in the Bastar and Sarguja Division as well as for the
District of Korba only the local residents would be eligible. Under
paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, there is no power
vested in the Government to make new law, which is the case in the instant
case.
52. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while answering the question as
to whether the power under paragraph 5(1) of schedule 5 extends to
subordinate legislation, at paragraph 60 and 61, held as follows:
"60. The submission that the order of the
Governor shall be treated as legislation and has to be
tested like legislation cannot be disputed. However,
when it comes to modification or exception,
concerning the Act of Parliament or the State
legislature, we cannot add subordinate legislation in
the ken of Para 5(1). The Governor can make a
decision not to apply Parliamentary law or State law
to scheduled areas and modify such law.
61. The rules framed under the proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution cannot be said to be the Act
of Parliament or State legislature. Though the rules
have the statutory force, they cannot be said to have
been framed under any Act of Parliament or State
legislature. The rules remain in force till such time the
legislature exercises power. The power of the
Governor under Para 5(1) of Schedule V of the
Constitution is restricted to modifying or not to apply,
Acts of the Parliament or legislature of the State.
Thus, the rules could not have been amended in the
exercise of the powers conferred under Para 5(1) of
Schedule V. The rules made under proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution cannot be said to be an
enactment by the State legislature. Thus, in our
opinion, it was not open to the Governor to issue the
impugned G.O. No.3/2000."
53. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it explicitly clear that
the power of the Governor under paragraph 5 (1) of the Fifth Schedule is
restricted to modifying or not to apply, acts of the Parliament or
legislature of the State and such power does not extend to rules made
under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In the instant cases, the
Governor has exercised power under paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule
in relation to Rules of 1961, which is a rule made under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India and as such, such exercise of power is wholly
impermissible in law.
54. With regard to the question as to whether exercise of power
conferred under paragraph 5 can override the fundamental rights
guaranteed under part III, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 84,
held as follows:
"84. The power is conferred on the Governor to deal
with the scheduled areas. It is not meant to prevail
over the Constitution. The power of the Governor is
pari passu with the legislative power of Parliament
and the State. The legislative power can be exercised
by the Parliament or the State subject to the
provisions of Part III of the Constitution. In our
considered opinion, the power of the Governor does
not supersede the fundamental rights under Part III of
the Constitution. It has to be exercised subject to Part
III and other provisions of the Constitution. When
Para 5 of the Fifth Schedule confers power on the
Governor, it is not meant to be conferral of arbitrary
power. The Constitution can never aim to confer any
arbitrary power on the constitutional authorities. They
are to be exercised in a rational manner keeping in
view the objectives of the Constitution. The powers
are not in derogation but the furtherance of the
constitutional aims and objectives."
55. While answering the above question, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has also held that the paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule beginning
with the words "notwithstanding anything in this Constitution" cannot be
construed as taking away the provision outside the limitations on the
amending power and it has to be harmoniously construed consistent with
the founding principles and the basic features of the Constitution.
56. Non-obstante clause contained in para 5(1) of the Fifth
schedule of the Constitution means the Governor can exercise powers
inspite of provisions contained in Article 245 of the Constitution, conferring
the power on the parliament to make laws and legislature of the State. In
Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
at paragraph 80 observed as follows:
"80. The non obstante clause contained in Para
5(1) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution means
the Governor can exercise power in spite of the
provisions contained in Article 245 of the
Constitution, conferring the power upon Parliament to
make laws and the legislature of the State. The
Parliament has the power to enact the law. It cannot
be questioned on the ground that it would have
extraterritorial operation."
57. In Soni Kumari & Others (supra), a notification under paragraph 5 of
the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution was issued providing that in the the
13 scheduled Districts of Jharkhand, only the local residents of the
concerned scheduled districts were held eligible for appointment on the
District Cadre Class III and Class IV posts for a period of ten years from the
date of issuance of the notification.
58. Perusal of paragraph 42 of Soni Kumari & Others (supra)
goes to show that the learned Advocate General conceded that in view of
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao
& Others (supra), the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of
India cannot be said to be an act of the Parliament or the State Legislature
and as by the impugned notification and order dated 14.07.2016, none of
the Act of the Parliament or the State Legislature is sought to be affected,
the notification and order may not stand the test laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
59. In view of the above discussion, the notification dated
17.01.2012 and the subsequent notifications extending the said notification
including the notification dated 28.05.2019 cannot be sustained in law and
therefore, they are set aside and quashed.
60. In view of the above conclusion, the challenge made to the
notification dated 30.01.2020 which had amended the notification dated
28.05.2019 is not really called for. However, we will assume for the
moment that the notifications dated 17.01.2012 and 28.05.2019 are valid in
law. It is an admitted position that on the date of advertisement on
09.03.2019, there was no notification issued under paragraph 5 of the Fifth
Schedule extending the notification dated 17.01.2012 and other extended
notifications. There was no stipulation in the advertisement dated
09.03.2019 that only the local residents of the Districts falling under Bastar
and Surguja Division and Korba District shall be eligible for recruitment to
the vacancies arising in respect of Class III and Class IV posts of the
District Cadre in various Departments of the concerned scheduled areas
and accordingly, candidates from all over the State had participated in such
selection process. After the selection process had commenced on
issuance of the advertisement dated 09.03.2019, the notification dated
28.05.2019 was issued extending the notification dated 17.01.2012 and
other subsequent notifications for a further period of three years from
01.01.2019 to 31.12.2021.
61. A right had accrued to the candidates who were not the
residents of Division of Bastar and Surguja or Korba District to take part in
the examination. By the notification dated 28.05.2019, the vested right of
such candidates was sought to be taken away. It is in the above
circumstance, the notification dated 30.01.2020 was issued providing that
the notification dated 28.05.2019 shall not affect the advertisement dated
09.03.2019. It is not that by the notification dated 30.01.2020, the rules of
the game had been sought to be changed after the selection process has
started, as contended by Mr. Ishan Verma. Rather, if the notification dated
28.05.2019 was allowed to hold the field, the same would have changed
the rules of the game after the selection process had begun. Even if the
Governor has a power to make amendment retrospectively in exercise of
power under paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule, such power cannot be
exercised to take away vested rights.
62. In Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development
Bank (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken note of the judgment
of the Constitution Bench in the case of Chairman, Railway Board v.
C.R.Rangadhamaiah, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 623, wherein it was
observed that a rule which operates in futuro so as to govern future rights
of those already in service cannot be assailed on the ground of retroactivity
as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but a rule which
seeks to reverse from an anterior date a benefit which has been granted or
availed of, can be assailed as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution to the extent it operates retrospectively. The expression
'vested rights' or 'accrued rights' have been used in the context of a right
flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with effect
from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available under
the rule in force at that time. Such an amendment having retrospective
operation which has the effect of taking away a benefit already available to
the employee under the existing rule is arbitrary, discriminatory and
violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.
63. In view of the above discussion, WPS No. 1081/2020, WPS No.
6864/2021, WPS No. 3005/2021 and WPPIL No. 29/2021 are dismissed.
WP(S) No. 4850/2020, WPS No. 16/2021 and WPS No. 143/2022, are
allowed.
64. Interim orders passed earlier stand vacated and all the IAs also
stand disposed of. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Gautam Chourdiya)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Amit
