Chattisgarh High Court
Alpana Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 July, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2025.07.10
17:47:43
+0530
2025:CGHC:31531-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5738 of 2023
1 - Alpana Tiwari D/o Sitaram Tiwari Aged About 44 Years R/o Main Road
Centre, Koni, Village Koni, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
2 - Pamendra Kurrey S/o Parmeshwar Prasad Kurrey Aged About 32 Years
Village And Post Bitkuli, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
3 - Durgesh Patel S/o Ram Manohar Patel Aged About 42 Years R/o Quarter
No. M/2, Songanga Colony, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
4 - Tarun Kesharwani S/o Bhikham Prasad Kesharwani Aged About 36 Years
R/o Behind D.P. Vipra College, Near Panchmukhi Hanuman Mandir,
Tikarapara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
5 - Alok Sharma S/o Bhushan Sharma Aged About 37 Years R/o C-29, Chaube
Colony, Arvind Nagar Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
6 - L. Maheshwar Rao S/o L. Krishna Rao Aged About 38 Years R/o S-2/8,
Ganesh Nagar Anpurna Vihar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
7 - Dhaneshwar Netam S/o Jagsingh Aged About 34 Years R/o Village And
Post Sonthi, Tahsil Sipat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
8 - Ravi Dewangan S/o Krishna Kumar Aged About 35 Years R/o Krishna
Cycle Store, Hatari Chowk, Juna Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.)
9 - Sagar Jaiswal S/o Baikunth Nath Jaiswal Aged About 34 Years R/o Salka
Nawagaon, Kargi Road, Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
10 - Manu Tripathi Mandal S/o Rahul Kumar Mandal Aged About 37 Years
R/o Usha Upvan Society, Hemu Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
11 - Ashwani Yadav S/o Ramsharan Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Budha
Mahadev Mandir, Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
2
12 - Savita Rani Yadav W/o Ashwani Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Budha
Mahadev Mandir, Ratanpur, District (C.G.)
13 - Sukhdev Soni S/o Yashwant Kumar Soni Aged About 33 Years R/o
Jorapara, Chaube Colony, C-40, Sarkanda, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.)
14 - Kalyani Verma W/o Prakash Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No.
12, Ruchika Vihar, Sirgitti, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.)
15 - Shalini Sahu W/o Santosh Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Sichai Colony,
Near Sai Mandir, Ranigaon Chowk Ratanpur District Bilaspur (C.G.)
16 - Prakash Sharma S/o Shri U.S. Sharma Aged About 33 Years R/o Near
Ashish Traders Chatidih, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
17 - Saurabh Mangal S/o Rajkumar Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Mangal
Trading, Station Road, Shakti, District Shakti (C.G.)
18 - Anjan Kumar Acharya S/o Anil Acharya Aged About 38 Years R/o Jai
Loknath Vihar, Secl Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
19 - Dipali Rajwade D/o Ramsai Rajwade Aged About 31 Years R/o Village
Vishunpur, School Para, Block Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.)
20 - Omprakash Rajwade S/o Ramlal Rajwade Aged About 44 Years R/o
Damarpara, Near Lok Parlok Dhabha, Chindand Baikunthpur,district Korea
(C.G.)
21 - Vikram Miri S/o Lakhan Lal Miri Aged About 34 Years R/o C-95/2, 2nd
Bataliyan Camp, Sakri District Bilaspur (C.G.)
22 - Vandana Singh D/o Bhanu Pratap Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o In
Front Of Fedreshan Office, Babulain, Chhota Bazar Chirmiri District Korea
(C.G.)
23 - Amir Kumar Patle S/o Aatmalal Patle Aged About 32 Years Sodhar, Post
Dharampur, Tahsil Mungeli District Mungeli (C.G.)
24 - Ashish Kumar Kashyap S/o Shivpujan Prasad Aged About 35 Years R/o
Near Kali Mandir, Bramahan Para, Lormi District Mungeli (C.G.)
25 - Mukesh Singh Thakur S/o Bhuwan Singh Thakur Aged About 38 Years
R/o Gali No. 4, Bhartiya Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
26 - Bhupendra Prasad S/o P.N. Prasad Aged About 36 Years R/o L.I.G. 115,
Devarikhurd, Haushing Board Colony, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
3
27 - Jitendra Kumar Kanwar S/o Ramji Kanwar Aged About 30 Years R/o
Village Nawagaon, Post Dhaurabhata, Tahsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari
(C.G.)
28 - Pankaj Kumar Temunkar S/o Nirmal Temunkar Aged About 40 Years R/o
Village And Post Selud, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.)
29 - Amrit Lal Indawar S/o Mahesh Ram Indawar Aged About 37 Years R/o
Village And Post Duldula, High School Colony, Jashpur, District Jashpur
(C.G.)
30 - Suman Lal Sande S/o Sahas Ram Sande Aged About 33 Years R/o Village
Cheudih, Post Menda, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
31 - Tadharam Kahra S/o Parasram Kahra Aged About 38 Years R/o
Kahrapara, Sargaon, Post Sargaon, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
32 - Pramod Kumar Chandra S/o Kartik Ram Chandra Aged About 39 Years
R/o Village Bhathora, Tahsil Malkharoda, District Sakti (C.G.)
33 - Sunil Kumar Thawait S/o Lakhan Lal Aged About 41 Years R/o Indra
Colony, Near Pani Tanki, Tarbahar, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.)
34 - Ekant Kumar Jaiswal S/o Vijay Jaiswal Aged About 35 Years Kalyan
Krishi Sewa Kendra, School Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.)
35 - Sandeep Kumar Sahu S/o Shiv Kumar Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o
Ekta Samiti Imlibhatha, Bandhwapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur
(C.G.)
36 - Ramcharan Sahu S/o Hiralal Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Near
Sheetala Mandir, Kishan Para, Chatidih, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
37 - Shweta Jaiswal D/o Ashok Jaiswal Aged About 33 Years R/o Bazar Road,
Ramanujnagar District Surajpur (C.G.)
--Petitioners
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Tribal And
Schedule Caste Development, Dau Kalyan Sinh Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Director Department Of Tribal And Schedule Caste Development,
Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
4
3 - Commissioner Department Of Tribal And Schedule Caste Development,
Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
-Respondent(s)
AND
WPS No. 5861 of 2023
1 - Rajnikant Rajwade S/o- Ramchnadra Rajwade Aged About 31 Years R/o-
Village- Mendra Kalan, Post- Mendrakalan, Tahsil- Ambikapur, District :
Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
2 - Komal Singh S/o- Govind Ram Aged About 36 Years R/o- Village-
Mudhiya, Post- Suregaon, Block- Doundi Lohara, District : Balod,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Pritesh Singh S/o- Raj Kishore Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o- H. N. D /
141, Nahar Parjagdamba Colony, Mathpurena, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Priyesh Kumar Sahu S/o- G. R. Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o- Sahu
Sadan Ward No. 68, Ramayan Nagar, Koni, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
5 - Om Narayan Dewangan S/o - Sekhlal Dewangan Aged About 31 Years R/o-
Village- Matewa, Block- Gundardehi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
6 - Dhaneshwar Singh Thakur S/o- Ram Krishna Thakur Aged About 35 Years
R/o- Village- Gainjee, Post Gidhali, Block- Doundi Lohara, District : Balod,
Chhattisgarh
7 - Daneshwar S/o - Mansukh Lal Verma Aged About 34 Years R/o- Village
And Post Gatapar Kala, Block Khairagarh, District : Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-
Gandai, Chhattisgarh
8 - Gajanan S/o- Lilar Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o - Ward No. 13,
Amapara, Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
9 - Vinod Gendre S/o- Pilalal Gendre Aged About 32 Years R/o- H. No. 08,
Ward No. 06, Arjunda, Tahsil Arjunda, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
10 - Rahul Sirmour S/o- Ramakant Sirmour Aged About 32 Years R/o- Q.No.
3/h Street No. 05 Sector 04, Bhilai Nagar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
5
11 - Mukesh Kumar Sahu S/o- Shiv Kumar Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o-
Sahu Niwas, Village And Post- Kurud, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
12 - Amit Kumar Singh S/o- Latru Ram Aged About 30 Years R/o- Gandhi
Nagar Near Shiv Temple, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur),
Chhattisgarh
13 - Ashish Soni S/o- Ramesh Soni Aged About 30 Years R/o- Nawapara
Charch Road, Ward No. 09 Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Jorapara,
Chhattigarh.
14 - Abhishek Dubey S/o- Ashok Kumar Dubey Aged About 37 Years R/o-
Tarbahar, Indira Colony, Near Pani Tanki Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
15 - Sameer Singh S/o- Ashnandan Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o- Ring
Road, Naya Bus Stand, Gangapur, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur),
Chhattisgarh
16 - Ravi Shankar Gavel S/o- Lt. Ram Prasad Aged About 31 Years R/o - Basti
Para, Village- Bagdewa, Post- Tiur, Block Kharsia, District : Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
17 - Tripati Singh Sarang D/o- Samay Lal Sarang Aged About 32 Years R/o-
Temar Road Infront Of Sonthi Petrol Pump, Block Sakti, District : Sakti,
Chhattisgarh
18 - Chemendra Kumar Mairty S/o Amrit Lal Maitry Aged About 35 Years
R/o- Ward No. 2, Atal Chowk, Dhabhra, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh
19 - Nisha Rathore D/o- Chetan Prasad Rathore Aged About 31 Years R/o-
Village Seoni Naila, Tahsil Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
20 - Vikram Singh Markam S/o- Dara Sing Markam Aged About 30 Years R/o-
Tilak Nagar Ward No. 9 Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
21 - Johan Banjare S/o- Ashok Kumar Banjare Aged About 34 Years R/o- Old
Power House, Bajaj Colony, Torwa Tahsil And, District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
22 - Subhash Kumar Manhar S/o- Joshik Manhar Aged About 28 Years R/o-
Village- Taldeori, Tahsil- Bamnidih, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
6
23 - Atul Kumar Xalxo S/o- Miliyanush Xalxo Aged About 34 Years R/o-
Village- Khairbar, New Basti Baki Dam Road, Ambikapur, District : Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh
24 - Kamlesh Kumar Lahre S/o- Malik Ram Lahre Aged About 39 Years R/o-
Village- Parsada, Post Bharni Ganiyari, Tahsil- Sakri, District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
25 - Vimal Kumar Thakur S/o- Ramesh Singh Thakur Aged About 33 Years
R/o- Kawrdha, Block- Kawrdha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham),
Chhattisgarh
26 - Milan Dev Rai S/o- Shital Prasad Aged About 33 Years R/o- Village-
Kirari, Tahsil- Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
27 - Kishore Kumar Tikam S/o- Halli Ram Tikam Aged About 32 Years R/o-
H. No. G 1 Block Colony Para, Post- Tokapal, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur),
Chhattisgarh
28 - Sanjay Kumar Painkara S/o- Chandrabhan Singh Aged About 31 Years
R/o- Govt. Pre Maitric S.T. Boys Hostel Sargipal Block Bakawand, District :
Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
29 - Pallav Jha S/o- Purushottam Jha Aged About 39 Years R/o- Bastar High
School Parisar Near Hata Ground, Jagdalpur, Block Jagdalpur, District :
Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
30 - Prakhar Singh Sisodiya S/o- Rana Bhaiya Sisodiya Aged About 31 Years
R/o- Ward No. 16, Behind Tiwari Balodyan Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh
31 - Dharmesh Kumar Sidar S/o- Kishor Kumar Sidar Aged About 31 Years
R/o- Street No. 34, Q.No.4-B Nandini Township, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
32 - Balram Dewangan S/o- Omprakash Aged About 31 Years R/o- Ward No.
9, Taigor Nagar, Sariya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
33 - Girivar Naik S/o- Nayan Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o- Village And
Post Tausir, Tahsil Baramkela, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
34 - Anushiya Patel D/o- Chhatra Kumar Aged About 32 Years R/o- Village
Bore, Budha Gautiyapara, Post Devgaon, Tahsil Baramkela, District : Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
7
35 - Priyankeshwar Patel S/o- Budhram Aged About 31 Years R/o- House No.
02, Purana Police Line, Gaushalapura, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
36 - Abhishek Kumar S/o- Ashok Kumar Aged About 34 Years R/o- Ward No.
6, B. D. Mahant Upnagar, Janjgir-Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh
37 - Hitesh Kumar Gupta S/o- Himanshu Aged About 31 Years R/o- Village
Manpur, Post Adhiyar Khor, Tahsil- Nawagarh, District : Bemetara,
Chhattisgarh
38 - Vinay Kumar Gupta S/o- Santosh Kumar Gupta Aged About 32 Years
R/o- Jai Gurudev, Pashu Aahar, Infront Of Krishi Vibhag, Baikunthpur, District
: Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
39 - Satyendra Kumar Kanojiya S/o- Lt. Prahlad Ram Kanojiya Aged About
36 Years R/o- Kanya Shiksha Parisar Campus Ambikapur, District-
Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh
40 - Jyoti Ratre D/o- Lt. M. R. Ratre Aged About 32 Years R/o- Ho. No.
38/480, Dr. Jayant Rai Gali, Hemunagar, Torwa, Bilaspur, 495004.
---PetitionerS
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Tribal And Schedule Caste
Development Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Director Tribal And Schedule Caste Development Department, Indrawati
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Commissioner Department Of Tribal And Schedule Caste Development,
Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. R.K. Verma, Advocate
For State : Mr. Shangarsh Pandey, GA
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
8
Per, Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
09/07/2025
Heard.
1. Since, both the petitions involve same facts and grounds, therefore,
they are being heard together and decided by this common order. For
the sake of convenience, the pleadings and documents of WPS No.
5738/2023 are being referred.
2. The petitioners in the present Writ Petitions has prayed for following
reliefs:-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to
issue direction to the respondents authorities to produce all
the relevant record relating to the case of the petitioner's
before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to
quash the notification dated 22/09/2018 (Annexure P/3)
whereby amendment has been been brought in Schedule III
point no. 9 column 5 and schedule II Point No. 11. column
(6) in the Chhattisgarh Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe
Development Subordinate Service (Class -III Non
ministerial) Recruitment rules, 2011.
10.3. That the Hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the
respondent authorities concerned to consider the
candidature of the petitioners for the post of Circle
organizer.
10.4. That, this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to grant
Such other relief may be deemed fit and proper in the
Interest of justice."
3. (a) Case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are working on
Tribal & Schedule caste development department, State of
Chhattisgarh as a Hostel Superintendent grade C & D. Commissioner,
9
Department of Tribal and Schedule Caste Development/Respondent
no. 3 invited online application for Departmental recruitment
examination on 14.07.2023 for the post of Circle Organizer under the
Tribal and Schedule Caste Development department. The online
application of said examination has been invited from 18.07.2023 to
07.08.2023.
(b) According to the petitioners, the said examination was only for
departmental employees, meaning thereby, all the posts were reserved
for Clerk Grade -II & III and Hostel Superintendent Grade- D. As per
the advertisement, it neither discloses the number of vacant seat,
reservation for caste SC, ST, OBC, General and also the seat
bifurcation between Male and Female neither the detailed syllabus of
the aforementioned examination has been disclosed.
(c) According to the petitioners, pursuant to the advertisement for
appointment to the post of Circle Organizer, they are not allowed to
fill up the online application form because the respondent authorities
have demanded necessary qualification of under graduate degree of
Anthropology/Sociology/Psychology.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the syllabus
given by the respondents in the recruitment examination given added
advantage to the candidates who are presently working as Assistant
Grade-II & III. He would further submit that respondents have not
assigned any reason as to why only streams of Anthropology,
Sociology, Psychology, Social Work have been allowed to participate
10
in the recruitment process, whereas all other streams have been
neglected. He would further submit that the petitioners are having
graduate degree and some petitioners are also having post graduate
degree but all of them are unable to apply in the said post. According
to the learned counsel, the amendment brought in the recruitment
rules is creating hindrance in way of petitioners to reach an executive
post, the compulsion of the subject mentioned in the amended rules
will debar the petitioners to reach the post of Circle Superintendent.
5. (a) Learned counsel appearing for the State ex-adverso, would
submit that in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the rules titled as
"Chhattisgarh Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes Development
Subordinate Service (Class III Non Ministerial) Recruitment Rules,
2011 have been framed. The said Rules provides for the post of Circle
Organizer in the set up which is a Class III Non Ministerial post and
there is a provision of filling up 60% of this post through direct
recruitment and 40% of this post are to be filled up by way of
promotion and out of 40% promotional posts, 15% posts are to be
filled up by selection through departmental examination from clerk
cadre and 25% posts are to be filled up by selection through
departmental examination from Assistant Teacher
(b) According to the learned counsel, Schedule III appended to the
"Chhattisgarh Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes Development
Subordinate Service (Class III Non Ministerial) Recruitment Rules,
11
2011 (henceforth 'the Rules, 2011'), provides the educational
qualification for appointment on the post of Circle Organizer wherein
the essential qualification is graduate or its equivalent. Further there is
a provision of giving preference to the candidates having Masters
degree in Anthropology / Sociology / Psychology / Social Works
/Bachelors degree in education. Further, the post of Circle Organizer
is a post at Block level and the main duty of the post of Circle
Organizer of the department is to promote various schemes aimed on
the development of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Caste categories
and further to encourage the education measures towards upliftment
and betterment of the members of the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled
Caste categories and further to ensure proper working of various
projects run by the department.
(c) According to learned counsel by way of the amendment
notification dated 22/09/2018, certain amendments were made in the
Rules, 2011 and as per the amendments, Schedule II entry no. 11 was
amended and out of total 40% promotional posts of Circle Organizer,
a provision has been made that 15% posts would be filled up from the
Clerk cadre and rest 25% posts would be filled up by the Hostel
Superintendent Grade D through limited departmental examination.
Further, amendment has been made in Schedule III entry no. 9 column
no. 5 by which the essential educational qualification for the post of
Circle Organizer has been fixed at graduate or equivalent degree in
Anthropology/Sociology/Psychology an further preference has been
given to the candidates having PG degree in the above mentioned
12
subjects.
(d) He would submit that as far as the challenge to the
constitutionality and validity of the amendment in the Rules is
concerned, the same has no force as the amendments which have been
carried out by virtue of notification dated 20/09/2018, have been made
taking into the account the nature of the job and duties performed by
the Circle Organizer. Therefore, the challenge made by the petitioners
in the present petitions are not tenable and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
pleadings.
7. For the sake of convenience, it would be appropriate to reproduced the
relevant portion of the notification dated 22/09/2018 (Annexure P/3)
whereby amendment has been been brought in Schedule III point no.
9 column (5) and schedule II Point No. 11. column (6) in the
Chhattisgarh Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes Development
Sub-ordinate Service (Class -III Non ministerial) Recruitment Rules,
2011:-
Schedule-II
(See Rule- 6)
Chhattisgarh Subordinate Service Class-III Non-Ministerial
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Development Department
Percentage of number of duty post to be filled in
S.I. Name of Post Total number of By direct By Promotion of By Transfer of
included in duty posts recruitment member of service persons from
service rule 6(1) (a) rule 6 (1) (b) other service rule
6 (1) (c)
13
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
II- Executive -
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
11. Circle 85 60% 40% Promotion
Organizer Quota:- 15% by
Selection
through
departmental
Examination
from clerk cadre
(Asst. grade 02
& 03) 25% by
selection through
departmental
Examination
from Assistant
Teacher by
departmental
examination
Schedule-III
(See Rule- 8)
Name of Name of Post Minimum Upper age limit Educational qualification
Department age limit prescribed
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Development Department
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
II- Executive -
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
9. Circle 21 30 (for local Graduate or its equivalent
Organizer residents 35) preference will be given to
candidates having Masters
Degree in Anthropology
/Sociology/ Psychology/ Social
works/Bachelors degree in
education. Preference means if
the marks obtain in written
Exam./ Interview is equal then
14
the candidate having Masters
Degree in Anthropology
/Sociology/ Psychology/ Social
works/Bachelors degree in
education is given Preference
in Appointment. In case of
equal marks with above said
qualification then a candidate
given preference whose birth
date follows earlier.
8. Whether an employee has a right to be promoted or not depends on
the statutory rules governing his service or the terms of the contract of
service or executive instructions as the case may be. If the rules or the
contract of service etc. provide or indicate that promotion is to be
made on an assessment of the merits of the candidate, then the
candidate has only a right to be considered for promotion as
distinguished from the right to be promoted.
9. It is well settled that while promotion is a normal incidence of service
and not a fundamental right, but an employee has a right to be
considered for promotion. In Union of India and others v. Krishna
Kumar and others1, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have
clearly held that there is no vested right to promotion, but a right be
considered for promotion in accordance with the Rules which prevail
on the date on which consideration for promotion takes place, and
observed in paragraphs 10, 11 & 12 as under: -
"10. In considering the rival submissions, it must, at the
outset, be noted that it is well settled that there is no
1 (2019) 4 SCC 319
15
vested right to promotion, but a right be considered for
promotion in accordance with the Rules which prevail on
the date on which consideration for promotion takes
place. This Court has held that there is no rule of
universal application to the effect that vacancies must
necessarily be filled in on the basis of the law which
existed on the date when they arose. The decision of this
Court in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao2 has been
construed in subsequent decisions as a case where the
applicable Rules required the process of promotion or
selection to be completed within a stipulated time-frame.
Hence, it has been held in H.S. Grewal v. Union of India 3
that the creation of an intermediate post would not
amount to an interference with the vested right to
promotion. A two-Judge Bench of this Court held thus:
(H.S. Grewal case, SCC p. 769, para 13)
"13. ... Such an introduction of an
intermediate post does not, in our opinion, amount to
interfering with any vested rights cannot be
interfered with, is to be accepted as correct. What all
has happened here is that an intermediate post has
been created prospectively for future promotions
from Group B Class II to Group A Class I. If, before
these Rules of 1981 came into force, these officers
were eligible to be directly promoted as
Commandants under the 1974 Rules but before they
got any such promotions, the 1981 Rules came in
obliging them to go through an intermediate post,
this does not amount to interfering with any vested
rights."
2 (1983) 3 SCC 284 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 382
3 (1997) 11 SCC 758 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 420
16
11. In Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P.4, this Court
observed thus: (SCC p. 735, paras 26-27)
"26. It is by now a settled proposition of law
that a candidate has the right to be considered in the
light of the existing rules, which implies the "Rules in
force" on the date the consideration took place.
There is no rule of universal or absolute application
that vacancies are to be filled invariably by the law
existing on the date when the vacancy arises. The
requirement of filling up old vacancies under the old
rules is interlinked with the candidate having
acquired a right to be considered for promotion. The
right to be considered for promotion accrues on the
date of consideration of the eligible candidates.
Unless, of course, the applicable rule, as in Y.V.
Rangaiah case13 lays down any particular time-
frame, within which the selection process is to be
completed. In the present case, consideration for
promotion took place after the amendment came into
operation. Thus, it cannot be accepted that any
accrued or vested right of the appellants has been
taken away by the amendment.
27. The judgments cited by the learned
counsel for the appellants, namely, B.L. Gupta v.
MCD5, P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of A.P.6 and N.T.
Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission 7
are reiterations of a principle laid down in Y.V.
Rangaiah case13."
4 (2011) 6 SCC 725 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 175]
5 (1998) 9 SCC 223 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 532
6 1988 Supp SCC 740 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 123
7 (1990) 3 SCC 157 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 446
17
12. Recently, in State of Tripura v. Nikhil Ranjan
Chakraborty8, another two-Judge Bench of this Court held thus:
(SCC pp. 650-51, para 9)
"9. The law is thus clear that a candidate has the
right to be considered in the light of the existing
rules, namely, "rules in force on the date" the
consideration takes place and that there is no rule of
absolute application that vacancies must invariably
be filled by the law existing on the date when they
arose. As against the case of total exclusion and
absolute deprivation of a chance to be considered as
in Deepak Agarwal15, in the instant case certain
additional posts have been included in the feeder
cadre, thereby expanding the zone of consideration.
It is not as if the writ petitioners or similarly situated
candidates were totally excluded. At best, they now
had to compete with some more candidates. In any
case, since there was no accrued right nor was there
any mandate that vacancies must be filled invariably
by the law existing on the date when the vacancy
arose, the State was well within its rights to stipulate
that the vacancies be filled in accordance with the
Rules as amended. Secondly, the process to amend
the Rules had also begun well before the Notification
dated 24-11-2011.""
10. As such, the petitioners have only a right to be considered fairly, but
no right of promotion. However, in the matter of State of
Maharashtra and another v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and
others9, it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that
8 (2017) 3 SCC 646 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 718
9 (1981) 4 SCC 130
18
mere chances of promotion are not conditions of service, and the fact
that there was reduction in the chances of promotion did not
tantamount to a change in the conditions of service. It has been
further held that a right to be considered for promotion is a term of
service, but mere chances of promotion are not. Furthermore, in the
matter of Air Commodore Naveen Jain v. Union of India and
others10, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have affirmed the view
relying upon various judicial pronouncements that power of the State
to fix quota for promotion cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or
discriminatory so as to attract violation of either Article 14 or 16 of
the Constitution, and it was observed in paragraphs 13 & 15 as under:
-
"13. In State of Mysore v. G.B. Purohit11, this Court held
that a right to be considered for promotion, is a condition
of service but mere chances of promotion are not. The
rule which merely affects the chances of promotion cannot
be regarded as varying a condition of service. The said
judgment was quoted with approval in later judgment
reported as Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of
Maharashtra12, wherein this Court held as under: (SCC p.
329, para 15)
"15. ... All that happened as a result of making
promotions to the posts of Deputy Collectors division
wise and limiting such promotions to 50 per cent of
the total number of vacancies in the posts of Deputy
Collector was to reduce the chances of promotion
10 (2019) 10 SCC 34
11 1967 SLR 753 (SC)
12 (1974) 1 SCC 317 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 137
available to the petitioners. It is now well settled by
the decision of this Court in State of Mysore v. G.B.
Purohit22 that though a right to be considered for
promotion is a condition of service, mere chances of
promotion are not. A rule which merely affects
chances of promotion cannot be regarded as varying
a condition of service. In Purohit case the district
wise seniority of sanitary inspectors was changed to
Statewise seniority, and as a result of this change the
respondents went down in seniority and became very
junior. This, it was urged, affected their chances of
promotion which were protected under the proviso to
Section 115, sub-section (7). This contention was
negatived and Wanchoo, J. (as he then was),
speaking on behalf of this Court observed: (SLR para
10)
'10. ... It is said on behalf of the respondents
that as their chances of promotion have been
affected their conditions of service have been
changed to their disadvantage. We see no force
in this argument because chances of promotion
are not conditions of service.' "
15. In A. Satyanarayana v. S. Purushotham13, this
Court held that the power of the State to fix quota for
promotion cannot be said to be violative of the
constitutional scheme of equality as contemplated under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court
held as under: (SCC p. 426, paras 23 & 25-26)
"23. We, however, are of the opinion that the
validity or otherwise of a quota rule cannot be
determined on surmises and conjectures. Whereas
13 (2008) 5 SCC 416 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 279
the power of the State to fix the quota keeping in view
the fact situation obtaining in a given case must be
conceded, the same, however, cannot be violative of
the constitutional scheme of equality as contemplated
under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a policy
decision and, in particular, legislative policy should
not ordinarily be interfered with and the superior
courts, while exercising their power of judicial
review, shall not consider as to whether such policy
decision has been taken mala fide or not. But where
a policy decision as reflected in a statutory rule
pertains to the field of subordinate legislation,
indisputably, the same would be amenable to judicial
review, inter alia, on the ground of being violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (See Vasu
Dev Singh v. Union of India14 and State of Kerala v.
Unni15.)
* * *
25. While saying so, we are not unmindful of the
legal principle that nobody has a right to be
promoted; his right being confined to right to be
considered therefor.
26. Similarly, the power of the State to take a policy
decision as a result whereof an employee's chance of
promotion is diminished cannot be a subject-matter
of judicial review as no legal right is infringed
thereby."
11. As such, reduction in chances of promotion, if any, on account of
14 (2006) 12 SCC 753
15 (2007) 2 SCC 365
change or amendment in the rules would not affect his fundamental
right, as the Government servant has only a right to be considered for
promotion in accordance with the relevant rules and therefore
challenge to this effect is hereby rejected.
12. In the matter of Dwarka Prasad and others v. Union of India and
others16, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that fixation
of quotas or different avenues and ladders for promotion in favour of
various categories of posts in feeder cadres based upon the structure
and pattern of the Department is a prerogative of the employer, mainly
pertaining to the policy-making field, and observed in paragraph 16 as
under: -
"16. Fixation of quotas or different avenues and ladders
for promotion in favour of various categories of posts in
feeder cadres based upon the structure and pattern of the
Department is a prerogative of the employer, mainly
pertaining to the policy-making field. The relevant
considerations in fixing a particular quota for a particular
post are various such as the cadre strength in the feeder
quota, suitability more or less of the holders in the feeder
post, their nature of duties, experience and the channels of
promotion available to the holders of posts in the feeder
cadres. Most important of them all is the requirement of
the promoting authority for manning the post on
promotion with suitable candidates. Thus, fixation of
quota for various categories of posts in the feeder cadres
requires consideration of various relevant factors, a few
amongst them have been mentioned for illustration. Mere
cadre strength of a particular post in the feeder cadre
16 (2003) 6 SCC 535
cannot be a sole criterion or basis to claim parity in the
chances of promotion by various holders of posts in feeder
categories."
13. Similarly, in Dilip Kumar Garg (supra), it has been held by their
Lordships of the Supreme Court that the administrative authorities are
in the best position to decide the prescription of requisite
qualifications for promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant
Engineer and the decision of the Government to treat all Junior
Engineers, whether degree-holders or diploma-holders, as equals for
the purpose of promotion is a policy decision, which the Court should
not ordinarily interfere, and observed as under in paragraphs 15 &
16:-
"15. In our opinion Article 14 should not be stretched
too far, otherwise it will make the functioning of the
administration impossible. The administrative authorities
are in the best position to decide the requisite
qualifications for promotion from Junior Engineer to
Assistant Engineer, and it is not for this Court to sit over
their decision like a court of appeal. The administrative
authorities have experience in administration, and the
Court must respect this, and should not interfere readily
with administrative decisions. (See Union of India v.
Pushpa Rani17 and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand18.)
16. The decision to treat all Junior Engineers, whether
degree-holders or diploma-holders, as equals for the
purpose of promotion is a policy decision, and it is well
settled that this Court should not ordinarily interfere in
policy decisions unless there is clear violation of some
17 (2008) 9 SCC 242 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 851
18 (2008) 10 SCC 1
constitutional provision or the statute. We find no such
violation in this case."
14. The statutory authority is entitled to frame the statutory rules laying
down the terms and conditions of service as also the qualifications
essential for holding a particular post. It is only the authority
concerned which can take ultimate decision therefor. This Court while
exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India ordinarily do not direct an employer to prescribe a qualification
for holding a particular post.
15. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the
employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or
desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the
employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate
must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of
work. The Court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much
less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications
being on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive rewriting
of the advertisement/notification. Questions of equivalence will also
fall outside the domain of judicial review.
16. It is noteworthy to mention here that prescription of educational
qualification for a post is the sole prerogative of the employer and
merely because a candidate is not having that qualification for the said
post and he/she is finding difficult to appear in the selection process
for the particular post for want of desired educational qualification,
the educational qualification so prescribed in the relevant rules cannot
be struck down unless it is manifestly arbitrary or discriminatory or
violative to the provisions of the Constitution of India. The petitioners
have failed to demonstrate that the impugned notice and the Rules are
either violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India or
violative of Article 14/16 of the Constitution of India or it suffers from
manifest arbitrariness and it has not been shown to be discriminatory.
17. It is a well settled law that if the rules/notifications/amendments are
made for general good, causes hardship to an individual, the same
could not be a ground for striking down the Rules. The
Rules/notification framed are valid and do not suffer from any vice of
unreasonableness. (See: R.N. Goyal v Ashwani Kumar Gupta and
Others19).
18. Applying the well settled principles of law and for the reasons
mentioned hereinabove, we are of considered opinion that there is no
illegality in the impugned Rules 2011 which has been published in the
Gazette notification dated 22/09/2018. The same are just and proper
warranting no interference of this Court.
19. Ex-consequenti, both the writ petitions, sans substratum, are liable to
be and are hereby dismissed.
20. There shall be no order as to cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/--
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Rahul/Shoaib
19 (2004) 11 SCC 753
