Nafr High Court
Case Details
Page 1 {W.P.(C)Nos.1078/2022 & 3476/2023} SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.05.02 18:32:32 +0530 2025:CGHC:19569-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1078 of 2022 Order reserved on: 11-3-2025 Order delivered on: 30-4- 2025 1. Chandan Lal Anant, S/o Shri Sudheram Anant, Aged about 48 years, R/o Village Khudiyadih, Post Office Dhandhan, Via Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Tushar Manu, S/o Shri Shivdas Manu, Aged about 44 years, R/o Behind Amar Gas Godam, Samta Colony, Magarpara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Vijay Singh Marko, S/o Ganpat Singh Marko, Aged about 43 years, R/o Nutan Colony, Room No.H/1/9, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Prem Lal Netam, S/o Jagdish Prasad Netam, Aged about 43 years, R/o House No.G-5, Irrigation Colony, Ward No.11, Naya Baradwar, Tahsil Baradwar, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5. Sukhnandan Prasad Dhruv, S/o Kumaru Ram Dhruv, Aged about 45 years, R/o House No.H-5, Irrigation Colony, Ward No.3, Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6. Phoolchand Dhruv, S/o Johit Ram Dhruv, Aged about 40 years, R/o Village Lormi, Via Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) 7. Ajay Kumar Paikra, S/o Lalman Singh Paikra, Aged about 39 years, R/o Village Jatadevri, Post Office Aamadand, Tahsil Pendra, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) Page 2 {W.P.(C)Nos.1078/2022 & 3476/2023} 8. Hemant Kumar Kushram, S/o Basant Singh Kushram, Aged about 43 years, R/o Village Nagwahi, Post Office Silpahri, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) 9. Kailash Singh Marko, S/o Shri Khilawan Ram Marko, Aged about 41 years, R/o House No.H-10, Arpa Sichai Colony, Ramnagar, Kota, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Petitioners Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Village Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Through Secretary, 2. Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Vill. Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Water Resources, Shivnath Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents AND WPC No. 3476 of 2023 Santosh Kumar Ratre, S/o Shri Bhikhu Ratre, Aged about 38 years, R/o Village Khamhariya, Tahsil & District Mungeli (C.G.) Current Posting Water Resources Department, Kota, Sub-Division Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Village Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Through Secretary, 2. Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhavan, Vill. Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Page 3 {W.P.(C)Nos.1078/2022 & 3476/2023} 3. Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Water Resources, Shivnath Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents For Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
:- Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rashmi Tandon, Advocate. For Respondents/State :- Mr. Arvind Dubey, Government Advocate. Division Bench: - Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ. C.A.V. Order Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in both the above writ petitions, they were clubbed together and heard
Decision
together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners herein, who are presently working as Amin, have challenged the constitutional validity of the eligibility qualification for appointment to the post of Amin laid down in Schedule-III, Class-III (Executive) Abhiyana, Serial No.1 of the Chhattisgarh Water Resources (Non-Gazetted Technical) Service Recruitment Rules, 2016 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2016’) on the ground that such a rule is constitutionally invalid, arbitrary and violative of the petitioners’ right guaranteed under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Page 4 {W.P.(C)Nos.1078/2022 & 3476/2023} 3. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: - 4. The petitioners are presently working and posted as Amin and have challenged the Rules of 2106 on the ground that such rules do not prescribe Patwari training as an essential qualification for appointment to the post of Amin which would render all Amins with and without Patwari training as one. It is the further case of the petitioners that those Amins who are not Patwari trained would also become eligible for promotion to the post of Irrigation Inspector along with the petitioners. Furthermore, Irrigation Inspector being the feeder cadre for Canal Deputy Collector, which requires Patwari training, would also get extinguished for the Irrigation Inspectors and thus, the petitioners’ chance for being considered for promotion gets extinguished. The Madhya Pradesh (Chhattisgarh) Irrigation Department (Extra- ordinary) Service Appointment Rules, 1969, framed on 23-8- 1969, the educational qualification for being appointed on the post of Amin was 8th pass and preference would be given to those persons who are having Patwari training which has been amended on 12-1-1990 and the educational qualification Page 5 {W.P.(C)Nos.1078/2022 & 3476/2023} prescribed was the candidate must have passed 10+2 examination and must have Patwari training and thereafter, the petitioners were appointed on 12-12-2007. In the impugned Rules of 2016 which came into force from 24-2-2016, the qualification with respect to Patwari training has been done away which is unconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of the petitioners’ right guaranteed under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. The respondents have filed return stating inter alia that the petitions are based on pure apprehension and even the apprehension is misconceived and misplaced as well. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioners are Patwari trained Amins, who were appointed in the year 2007 and those who shall be appointed under the Rules of 2016 will in any case be juniors to the petitioners and therefore the new appointees shall not in any manner interfere with the chance of promotion of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are not affected by the Rules of 2016 particularly, the change in the qualification for appointment of Amin. Even otherwise, prescription of qualification is the prerogative of the Government and scope of interference is quite limited. It was Page 6 {W.P.(C)Nos.1078/2022 & 3476/2023} further pleaded that those Irrigation Inspectors who are Patwari trained will get further promoted to the post of Canal Deputy Collector and promotion to the post of Canal Deputy Collector is governed by the Chhattisgarh Water Resource Engineering and Geological (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 2014, which prescribe that only those Irrigation Inspectors shall be promoted who are Higher Secondary or High School Examination under (10+2) system passed and who are Patwari training qualified. As such, the petitioners challenge is absolutely misconceived and based on calculative risk of change in chance of promotion and therefore the writ petition has no merit, as it is wholly misplaced and without any cause of action. 6. Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the impugned Rules of 2016 to the extent of challenge to the deletion of eligibility qualification of Patwari training are vitiated on account of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as unequals are being treated as equals. She would further submit that the Rules of 2016 have attempted to equate, unequals by making all Amins with or without Patwari training to be merged into a Page 7 {W.P.(C)Nos.1078/2022 & 3476/2023} common zone who would be eligible to be promoted to the post of Irrigation Inspectors, making Amin with Patwari training at par with Amin not having Patwari training thereby throwing open the avenues of promotion of Irrigation Inspector and Canal Deputy Collectors to all the Amins with or without Patwari training, who at present are in large numbers in comparison with Amins having Patwari training with comparatively small, numerical strength. She would also submit that the petitioners who are having Patwari training and who could further be promoted to the post of Irrigation Inspector and Canal Deputy Collector on account of having completed the qualifying period of service of 10 years would be losing their prospects of promotion to the post of Irrigation Inspector and thereafter the Canal Deputy Collector and their promotion avenues would be completely blocked, and the chances of promotion would be slender or even no chances during their service tenure, causing hardship and resulting in gross violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Though prescription of qualification and prescription of conditions of service are all within the spheres of executive or legislature, but it is unreasonable to treat Amin with or without training equal and promote them by deleting the Page 8 {W.P.(C)Nos.1078/2022 & 3476/2023} qualification of Patwari training to the post of Irrigation Inspector, which is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. She would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Shukla and others v. Arvind Rai and others1 and that of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Joaquim I.M. Dias v. R.S. Revonkar and others2 to buttress her submissions. 7. Mr. Arvind Dubey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents, would submit that prescription of qualification is the prerogative of the Government and change in the Rules is also the complete prerogative of the Government, merely because some qualification has caused hardship to the petitioners, if any, only on the ground that it does not suit their interest, the Rules cannot be declared ultra vires, and as such, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1195 2 1989 SCC OnLine Bom 248 Page 9 {W.P.(C)Nos.1078/2022 & 3476/2023} Principles for Examining Constitutional Validity: - 9. A Statute is construed so as to make it effective and operative on the principle expressed in the maxim “ut res magis valeat quam pereat”. Therefore, a presumption that the Legislature does not exceed its jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing that the Act is not within the competence of the Legislature, or that it has transgressed other constitutional mandates, such as those relating to fundamental rights, is always on the person who challenges its vires. (See Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 12th Edition, page 592.) 10. It is a settled principle of law that the Statute enacted by the Parliament or State Legislature cannot be declared unconstitutional lightly. The Court must be able to hold beyond any iota of doubt that the violation of the constitutional provisions was so glaring that the legislative provisions under challenge cannot stand. 11. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of Shayara Bano v. Union of India and others (Ministry of Women and Child Development Secretary and others)3 held that legislation can be struck down if it is manifestly arbitrary 3 (2017) 9 SCC 1 Page 10 {W.P.(C)Nos.1078/2022 & 3476/2023} and manifest arbitrariness is the ground to negate legislation as well under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been observed by their Lordships as under: - It will be noticed that a Constitution Bench of “101. this Court in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India4 stated that it was settled law that 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.” 12. Furthermore, in the matter of Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti and another5, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that there is always a presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity of a subordinate legislation and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show 4 5