Himalaya Ravi S/o Lallu Ram Ravi Aged About 27 Years Presently Working As Assistant v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.14 17:50:50 +0530 2025:CGHC:2145-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 241 of 2025 Himalaya Ravi S/o Lallu Ram Ravi Aged About 27 Years Presently Working As Assistant Public Prosecutor, CBI, ACB, Imphal (Manipur) Permanent R/o Village Sara, Tahsil And P.S. Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary (Law), Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - High Court of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General, Bodari, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents WPS No. 280 of 2025 Aarti Katakwar D/o Keshavlal Katakwar Aged About 29 Years Presently Working As (ADPPO), Office of Deputy Director of Prosecution Jashpur (C.G.) Permanent R/o Village Dhurkot Tahsil And P.S. Janjgir - Champa District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary (Law) Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary North Block Sector 19, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - High Court of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General Bodari Bilaspur Distrit - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents 2 WPS No. 291 of 2025 Durgesh Nandini Marawi D/o C.S. Marawi Aged About 25 Years Presently Working As ADPO Raipur (C.G.) R/o Sr. MIG 104 Vijeta Complex New Rajendra Nagar Raipur (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner 1 - State of C.G. Through Principal Secretary (Law) Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - CG Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary North Block Sector 19, Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - High Court of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General Bodari Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents WPS No. 350 of 2025 1 - Dulesh Mrig Sahu S/o Rohit Sahu Aged About 28 Years Presently Working As ADPPO, Office of Deputy Director of Prosecution Durg ( C.G. ) R/o G 01, Nyayik Karmchari Awasiya Parisar, Bhatgaon, District Balodabazar, Bhatapara (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
2 - Smt. Minaxhi Dewangan W/o S.K. Dewangan, Aged About 40 Years Presently Working As ADPPO, Office of Deputy Director of Prosecution Dantewada (C.G.) Permanent R/o Behind J.L.N.D. College Purhenapara, Sakti, District Sakti ( C.G. ) 3 - Sounak Verma S/o Dilip Verma Aged About 27 Years Presently Working As Assistant Public Prosecutor, Central Bureau of Investigation, Kolkata (WB) Permanent R/o Ward No. 9, Amapara, Tahsil Mohla Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) 4 - Shruti Kamble P.K. Kamble Aged About 28 Years Presently Working As ADPPO, Office of Deputy Director of Prosecution Surguja At Ambikapur (C.G.) Permanent R/o H. No. 2/a, Road No. 73, Sector 6, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Deepak Kumar Chandrakar C.P. Chandrakar Aged About 28 Years Presently Working As ADPPO, Office of Deputy Director of Prosecution 3 Raipur ( C.G. ) Permanent R/o C/o Chandrika Prasad Chandrakar, Pitiyajhar Daldali Road, Mahasamund (C.G.) 6 - Ghateshwari D/o Jait Ram Diwan Aged About 30 Years Presently Working As ADPPO, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) Permanent R/o Ward No. 2, Shanti Nagar, Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 7 - Rahul Gupta S/o Nrayan Prasad Gupta Aged About 27 Years Presently Working As ADPPO, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) R/o Shanti Nagar, Kansabel, District Jashpur (C.G.) 8 - Bhavana Khatwani Tarun Kumar Khatwani Aged About 28 Years Presently Working As ADPPO, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) R/o F- 10, Dharampura No. 1, Near Doordarshan Office, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 9 - Ishu Deshmukh Jai Jai Ram Deshmukh Aged About 29 Years Presently Working As Law Officer, Central Jail, Durg (C.G.) Permanent R/o LIG 487 Housing Board Kohka Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 10 - Abhishek Singh Uikey Hiraman Lal Uikey Aged About 27 Years Presently Working As Adppo, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) R/o Transit Hostel Room No. 21, Vrindavan Colony, Jagdalpur, District Bastar ( C.G. ) versus ... Petitioners 1 - State of C.G. Through Principal Secretary (Law), Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector - 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - High Court of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General, Bodari, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur ( C.G. ) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General with Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate 4 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Decision
Order Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Per on Board 14.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1, Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 as well as Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. In WPS No.241 of 2025, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s) in this petition: “10.1 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the instant case. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set aside the amendment which relates to enrollment as and Advocate in eligibility criteria in Rule 7 of CG Lower Judicial Service Rule 2006 by notification dated 05.07.2024, and consequent advertisement of PSC as the same is against the direction of Hon’ble 5 Supreme Court rendered in case of All India Judges Association Case (2002 (4) SCC, 270) and arbitrary, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided to the petitioner.” 3. In WPS No.280 of 2025, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the instant case. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set aside the amendment which relates to enrollment as and Advocate in eligibility criteria in Rule 7 of CG Lower Judicial Service Rule 2006 by notification dated 05.07.2024, and consequent advertisement of PSC as the same is against the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in case of All India Judges Association Case (2002 (4) SCC, 270) and arbitrary, in the interest of justice. 6 10.3 Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided to the petitioner.” 4. In WPS No.291 of 2025, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the instant case. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set aside the amendment which relates to enrollment as and Advocate in eligibility criteria in Rule 7 of CG Lower Judicial Service Rule 2006 by notification dated 05.07.2024, and consequent advertisement of PSC as the same is against the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in case of All India Judges Association Case (2002 (4) SCC, 270) and arbitrary, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided to the petitioner.” 7 5. In WPS No.350 of 2025, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the instant case. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set aside the amendment which relates to enrollment as and Advocate in eligibility criteria in Rule 7 of CG Lower Judicial Service Rule 2006 by notification dated 05.07.2024, and consequent advertisement of PSC as the same is against the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in case of All India Judges Association Case (2002 (4) SCC, 270) and arbitrary, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided to the petitioner.” 6. The prayer made in the present petitions appear to be defective as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the rules has not been challenged and only the amendment is challenged in the petition. It has been further pointed out by the learned 8 counsel for the respondents that the pleadings are also missing and in absence of the pleadings, the respondents do not have an opportunity to rebut the same. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the High Court of Chhattisgarh has relied upon paragraph-9 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others v. Manjurani Routray and others passed in Civil Appeal No.2299 of 2010 decided on 01.09.2023, to submit that present petitions deserve to be dismissed as in absence of the pleadings, the respondents do not have an opportunity to rebut the same. 8. Paragraph-9 of the judgment passed in Manjurani Routray (supra) is relevant for the purpose, which is reproduced below for easy reference :- “9. While hearing learned counsels appearing for the parties, we asked Shri B.H. Marlapalle, learned senior counsel along with Shri Shibashish Mishra appearing on behalf of the respondents and intervenors, as to how, in absence of any pleading setting out grounds challenging the vires of Rule 4(b) and in the absence of seeking any relief to that effect, the High Court was justified in exercising jurisdiction to declare Rule 4(b) as 9 ultra vires? In response, learned senior counsel has fairly stated that it is a defect in the pleadings as well as in the relief sought before the CAT and in the writ petition. But still, they made an unsuccessful attempt to satisfy this Court that the said rule appears to be discriminatory and therefore the High Court has rightly exercised the jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. It is a trite law that for striking down the provisions of law or for declaring any rules as ultra vires, specific pleading to challenge the rules and asking of such relief ought to be made, that is conspicuously missing in the present case. In the absence of such a pleading, the Union of India did not have an opportunity to rebut the same. The other side had no opportunity to bring on record the object, if any, behind the Rules that were brought into force. We are also of the considered view that, in the writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari challenging the order of the CAT, the High Court ought not to have declared Rule 4(b) as ultra vires in the above fact situation. 10 Therefore, the High Court was not justified to declare Rule 4(b) as ultra vires.” 9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the dictum rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Manjurani Routray (supra), instant writ petitions are dismissed as the prayers made in the writ petitions appear to be defective as well as there are no averments made in the writ petitions and in absence of the pleadings, the respondents do not have an opportunity to rebut the same. 10. However, the petitioners is at liberty to file a fresh petition with proper prayer and pleadings. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Anu