(iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts
and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.
WPS Nos. 1983 of 2025 & 2012 of 2025
3. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2012/2025 has prayed for
10.5 Any other relief(s) in favor of petitioners as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case"
WPS Nos. 1983 of 2025 & 2012 of 2025
4. (a) Case of the petitioners is that they are aspiring candidates
holding graduate degree in Engineering, seeking to participate in the
direct recruitment examination for the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) /
Sub Engineer (Mechanical/ Electrical) scheduled to be held on
27.04.2025 by the Respondent- Chhattisgarh Public Health
Engineering (PHE) Department, advertised on 07.03.2025 (Annexure
P/2 to WPS No. 1983/2025). The petitioners contended that they are
graduate in Civil / Mechanical Engineering. The service condition for
recruitment of Sub Engineering in the Public Health Engineering
Department is governed by the rules namely "The Chhattisgarh
Public Engineering Department (Non-Gazetted) (Recruitment and
Condition of Service), Rules 2016 (for short, the Rules of 2016)". As
per Schedule -III Sr. No. 1 Column No. 5, the prescribed educational
qualification for Sub Engineer (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) is three
years Diploma in Civil/Mechanical/Electrical Engineering from any
institute recognized by the State Govt.
(b) The aforesaid clause is contrary in schedule-II Sr. No. 1 & 2
Column No. 8, wherein it is mentioned that Diploma/Degree holders
both are eligible for promotion on the post of Sub Engineer for 5%
quota, but for direct recruitment, only Diploma holder has been
permitted and the higher qualified Degree holders have been
impliedly debarred from participating for the post of Sub Engineer
which is violative of 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as higher
qualification is not a bar for recruitment.
WPS Nos. 1983 of 2025 & 2012 of 2025
(c) The said anomaly is due to mentioning of 'विहित शैक्षणिक योग्यता '
(prescribed educational qualification) instead of 'न्यूनतम शैक्षणिक योग्यता'
(minimum educational qualification). Learned counsel would submit
that in accordance with above Rules of 2016, the advertisement was
issued for the post of Sub Engineer (Civil/Electrical/Mechanical) in
which it was provided that any three year Diploma holder in
concerned Branch from recognized institution of State of
Chhattisgarh, can apply. Due to above provision, in the advertisement
only Diploma holders are permitted whereas in the earlier Rules of
2012, also similar provision was there but in the advertisement issued
at that time, it was mentioned in the education qualification as
minimum qualification of Diploma due to which, higher qualification
of Engineering Graduates were not debarred. Learned counsel would
further submit that in the other Departments, such as Public Works
Department, advertisement was issued for the post of Sub Engineer in
which both Diploma and Degree holders are permitted to participate.
Similar advertisement of CSPDCL was issued in which also, both
Diploma and Degree holders were permitted by mentioning minimum
qualification as Diploma.
(d) According to the learned counsel, Graduation in Engineering is
higher than the Diploma, and hence it cannot be the disqualification
for appearing in the examination of Sub Engineer. Thus Schedule-III
Sr. No. 1 Column no. 5 which provides only Diploma as prescribed
educational qualification instead of minimum educational
WPS Nos. 1983 of 2025 & 2012 of 2025
qualification debars the equal and higher qualified Engineering
Graduates and the same is violative of Article 14 & 16 of the
Constitution of India. Learned counsel would submit that the
petitioners who are Degree holders have a better case for
participation. Thus, the petitioners would pray that Rule-8 (II)
Column (5) of Schedule-III i.e. Serial No. 1 Sub-Engineer
(Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) of the Rules 2016 published in the
Gazette Notification dated 30/12/2016 may be declared as Ultra-Vires.
To buttress the contention, learned counsel would place reliance on
the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Puneet Sharma &
Others v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited &
Another, (2021) 16 SCC 340 wherein the Apex Court had directed
the State to allow the degree holders to participate in the recruitment
process and further to process candidature of all applicants, including
the degree holders who participated.
5. (i) Learned counsel appearing for the State ex-adverso, would
submit that prior to enactment of the Rules 2016, the Rules of 1979
were in force and the Rules 1979 also provided the same qualification
for recruitment to the post of Sub-Engineer, thereafter the rules titled
as Chhattisgarh Public Health Engineering Department (Non-Gazette)
Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2012, were
framed and the same were published in the Gazette dated 25.08.2012.
In Schedule III of the Rules 2012 the prescribed educational
qualification for the post of Sub-Engineer was the same (i.e. 03 years
WPS Nos. 1983 of 2025 & 2012 of 2025
of Polytechnic Diploma). He would further submit that the Rules
2016 were framed and presently the said rules are in force and in the
Rules 2016 also there is no change with respect to the provision of the
prescribed educational qualification for the post of Sub-Engineer in
the department. As per Schedule II of the Rules, 2016, out of 100%
posts of the Sub-Engineers, 95% posts are to be filled by Direct
recruitment whereas 5% posts are to be filled by promotion of the
members of the service. According to the learned counsel these 5%
posts of in service candidates are the Tracer and Assistant Draftsman
working in the department.
(ii) Learned counsel would further submit that there are many
persons who are appointed as Assistant Draftsman on the basis of the
certificate issued by the Industrial Training Institute. However, during
the course of their service they obtained higher degrees, such as
Diploma and AMIE which is equivalent to Engineering Degrees and
taking note of this fact in Schedule II, Sr. No. 1, Clause No.8 specific
provision has been made that as far as 5% quota for the departmental
candidates are concerned, Diploma/Degree holders are eligible for
promotion and there is no illegality in keeping the said provision and
the petitioners have wrongly made effort to demonstrate before the
Court that discrimination is being meted out. In support of his
contention, he placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by the
Supreme Court in the matter of Ankita Thakur & Anr. v. H.P. Staff
Selection Commission & Anr., 2023 SCC Online SC 1472, and
WPS Nos. 1983 of 2025 & 2012 of 2025
upon the decision renderred by this Court in the matters Ms.
Durgawati v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WPS No. 4292/2019
decided on 14/06/2023) and Bhim Bali Yadav & Others v. High
Court of Chhattisgarh & Anr (WPS No. 1496/2022 decided on
07/02/2025).
6. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent CG Vyapam would submit
that the petitioners have not claimed any relief against it and the said
respondent is only the recruiting agency on the basis of the extant
rules and the requisition sent by the concerned Departments of the
Govt.
7. Learned counsel for the intervenor would support the contention
raised by the learned counsel for the State and reiterated the same
facts and grounds.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
pleadings.
9. For the sake of convenience, it would be appropriate to quote Rule 8
(II); relevant portion of the subject matter of Sub-Engineer
(Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) of Schedule-III; Schedule -II and the
relevant portion of the advertisement, wherein the Education
qualification has been prescribed as under:-
Rule-8
"Rule 8. Conditions of eligibility for direct recruitment.-
In order to be eligible to be selected a candidate must
WPS Nos. 1983 of 2025 & 2012 of 2025
satisfy the following conditions, namely:-
(I) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
(II) Education Qualifications.- The Candidate must
possess the educational qualifications prescribed for
the service as shown in column (5) of Schedule-II.
XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Schedule-III
S. Name of Post Minimum age Maximum Prescribed Remarks
No. limit age limit educational
qualifications
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
None Gazetted State Wide Cadre (Class-III Executive)
1. Sub-Engineer 18 years 30 years Three years diploma Relaxation in age
(Civil/Mechanical in limit shall be given to
/Electrical Civil/Mechanical/Ele the members of
ctrical Engineering Scheduled Castes./
from any institute Scheduled
recognized by the Tribes/Other
State Government Backward Classes
(Non-creamy layer/
Women/ Ex-
servicement
according to Rule 8
Schedule-II
S. Name of Total no. of Percentage of the duty posts to be filled Departmental Remarks
No. service / Duty posts Promotion
posts Committee/
Selection
Committee
By Direct By By temporary
recruitment Promotion transfer of
See Rue 6 of the persons from
(1) (a) members of other service
the Service (See Rule 6
(See Rule 6 (1) (c)
(1) (b)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
1 Sub- 406 95% 5% - (1) 5% posts
Engineer Superintendin shall be
(Civil) g Engineer filled in by
nominated by promotion
Engineer-in- from
WPS Nos. 1983 of 2025 & 2012 of 2025
chief,- Technical
Chairman (Executive
(ii) Executive )
Engineer- Diploma/D
Member egree
(S.T.) Holder
(iii) Employee
Executive working in
Engineer- different
Member posts.
(S.C.)
(iv) Executive
Engineer-
Member
(General)
Advertisement
dk;kZy; izeq[k vfHk;ark
yksd LokLF; ;kaf=dh foHkkx
bUnzkorh Hkou] vVy uxj] uok jk;iqj ¼N-x-½
Øekad 175@LFkk-@iz-v-@yks-Lok-;ka-fo-@2025 vVy uxj] fnukad 15-01-2025
संक्षिप्त विज्ञापन
NRrhlx<+ 'kklu] yksd LokLF; ;kaf=dh foHkkx] ea=ky;] egkunh] uok jk;iqj] vVy
uxj ds i= Øekad ,Q 2&1@2024@34&1 fnukad 26-09-2024 ls foRr foHkkx dk tkod Øekad
1210@lh-,u ctV&2@foRr@pkj@2024] fnukad 20-09-2024 }kjk jkT; Lrjh; r`rh; Js.kh mi
vfHk;ark ¼flfoy½ ds 118 in ,oa mi vfHk;ark ¼fo@;ka½ ds 10 in dks lh/kh HkrhZ ls Hkjs tkus gsrq
vuqefr izkIr gSA mDr inksa dks lh/kh HkrhZ ds fy;s NRrhlx<+ ds LFkkuh; fuokfl;ksa ls vkWuykbZu
vkonsu i= NRrhlx<+ O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My] vVy uxj] uok jk;iqj ds osclkbZV ij
vkeaf=r fd;s tkrs gS] ijh{kk lacaf/kr tkudkjh NRrhlx<+ O;kie dh Website ij miyC/k
jgsxhA
inuke osrueku Js.kh fjDr inksa dh fofgr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk
la[;k
mi vfHk;ark ysoy&8] r`rh; Js.kh 118 jkT; 'kklu }kjk fdlh ekU;rk
¼flfoy½ osru 35400&112400 ¼dk;Zikfyd½ izkIr laLFkk ls flfoy baftfu;fjax
esa rhu o"khZ; fMIyksekA
mi vfHk;ark ysoy&8] r`rh; Js.kh 10 jkT; 'kklu }kjk fdlh ekU;rk
¼fo@;ka½ osru 35400&112400 ¼dk;Zikfyd½ izkIr laLFkk ls
esdsfudy@bysfDVªdy
baftfu;fjax esa rhu o"khZ;
fMIyksekA
WPS Nos. 1983 of 2025 & 2012 of 2025
XXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
10. From the nature and complexity of the aforesaid provisions, it is
manifest that the exclusion of degree holders who are better with the
requisite knowledge and technical skills is not only unreasonable but
also counter productive to the objective of recruiting competent
individuals for the post. This arbitrary restrictions undermines the
principles of fairness and equal opportunity. Even, the same is also in
clear violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14,
16 & 21 of the Constitution of India.
11. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in other departments of the
State e.g. Department of Public Works and CSPDCL for the post of
Sub-Engineer, the eligibility criteria permits both Diploma as well as
Degree holders. Thus, the act of the State in excluding the Degree
holders for recruitment on the post of Sub-Engineer in the department
of Public Health and Engineering is an act of discrimination.
12. The Supreme Court in the matter of Shayara Bano vs Union Of India
And Ors. Ministry Of Women, (2017) 9 SCC 1 observed that
Legislation can be struck down, if it is manifestly, arbitrary, and the
said manifest arbitrariness is the ground to negate legislation as well
as under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Para 101 of the said
decision reads as under:-
"101. It will be noticed that a Constitution Bench of this
Court in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v.
Union of India stated that it was settled law that
WPS Nos. 1983 of 2025 & 2012 of 2025
subordinate legislation can be challenged on any of the
grounds available for challenge against plenary legislation.
This being the case, there is no rational distinction between
the two types of legislation when it comes to this ground of
challenge under Article 14. The test of manifest
arbitrariness, therefore, as laid down in the aforesaid
judgments would apply to invalidate legislation as well as
subordinate legislation under Article 14. Manifest
arbitrariness, therefore, must be something done by the
legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without
adequate determining principle. Also, when something is
done which is excessive and disproportionate, such
legislation would be manifestly arbitrary. We are, therefore,
of the view that arbitrariness in the sense of manifest
arbitrariness as pointed out by us above would apply to
negate legislation as well under Article 14."
13. It is the trite law that any classification made by the State based on
intelligible differentia and must bear a rational nexus with the object
sought to be achieved. It is also well settled that any eligibility criteria
must bear a reasonable corelation with the functional recruitment of
the posts, the nature of the duties to be performed and the aptitudes
necessary to fulfill those duties effectively.
14. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present
case and for the reasons made hereinabove, the Rule 8 (II) Column (5)
of Schedule-III, Serial No. 1 Sub-Engineer (Civil/Mechanical/
Electrical) of the Rules 2016 published in the Gazette Notification
dated 30/12/2016 is declared as illegal, without jurisdiction and Ultra-
Vires.
WPS Nos. 1983 of 2025 & 2012 of 2025
15. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to mention here that when the
matters were listed before this Court on 25/03/2025, learned counsel
appearing for the respective petitioners had submitted that the last date
for submitting the application forms was 01/04/2025 and hence, they
would pray for interim protection to the effect that the petitioners,
who are the degree holders, may be allowed to participate in the
recruitment process. On proper appreciation of the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following interim
orders:-
"Considering the fact that since the last date
for submission of the online form in the portal of the
CGVYAPAM is upto 5 p.m. of 01.04.2025, the
respondent No. 1/State is directed to issue necessary
instruction to the respondent- CGVYAPAM who has
to conduct the examination, to make necessary
changes/amendments in the online portal for the
intending candidates / participants of the
examination in question for submission of their
online forms and the petitioners are at liberty to
submit their forms in the online portal, however, their
participation shall be subject to the final out come of
the present petitions.
It is made clear that this order would operate
in rem and not in personam and would be applicable
to all the similarly situated candidates having Degree
in Engineering, subject to the condition that they
fulfill other requisite criteria as may be prescribed by
the respondent Department in the advertisement in
question."
WPS Nos. 1983 of 2025 & 2012 of 2025
16. Since, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the
candidates having the degree in engineering have participated in the
recruitment process, and this Court declared the Rule 8 (II) Column
(5) of Schedule-III, Serial No. 1 Sub-Engineer (Civil/Mechanical/
Electrical) of the Rules 2016 published in the Gazette Notification
dated 30/12/2016 as Ultra Vires, the respondent's authorities are
directed to continue with the further selection process, subject to the
condition that the candidates fulfill other requisite criteria as may be
prescribed by the Respondents' Department in the advertisement.
17. In the result, both the Writ Petitions are allowed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Rahul/Gowri
WPS Nos. 1983 of 2025 & 2012 of 2025
HEAD NOTE
Any eligibility criteria must bear a reasonable corelation with the
functional recruitment of the posts, the nature of the duties to be performed
and the aptitudes necessary to fulfill those duties effectively.
