Afr High Court
Case Details
1 / 16 WPS No. 1496 of 2022 2025:CGHC:6942-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1496 of 2022 Order reserved on 31.01.2025 Order delivered on 07.02.2025 1. Bhim Bali Yadav S/o Govind Ram Gopal Aged About 42 Years Working As Staff Car Driver, Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur 2. Qutubuddeen S/o Moinuddeen Aged About 46 Years Working As Staff Car Driver, Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur 3. Padum Lal Yadav S/o Jethu Ram Yadav Aged About 42 Years Working As Staff Car Driver, Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur 4. Ishwar Chandra Yadav S/o Govind Ram Aged About 38 Years Working As Staff Car Driver, Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur 5. Sunil Kumar Mishra S/o Late Shri Uma Shankar Mishra Aged About 36 Years Working As Record Supplier, Honble Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur 6. Ashwani Kumar Dubey S/o Gaukaram Prasad Dubey Aged About 38 Years Working As Record Supplier, Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur 7. Madan Lal Sahu S/o Late Shri Kishun Ram Sahu Aged About 57 Years Working As Record Supplier, Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur 8. Raj Kumar S/o Karigir Jogi Aged About 36 Years Working As Peon, Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur 9. Kavita Patel W/o Suresh Patel Aged About 35 Years Working As Peon, Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur 10.Mahendra Kumar Dwivedi S/o Ram Prashd Dwivedi Aged About 36 Years Working As Peon, Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur 11.Sanjeev Kumar Singh S/o Vinod Singh Aged About 25 Years Working As Peon, Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur 2 / 16 WPS No. 1496 of 2022 12.Birendra Singh S/o Kok Singh Aged About 36 Years Working As Record Supplier, Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur 13.Rajesh Kumar Tiwari S/o Ram Ratan Tiwari Aged About 49 Years Working As Record Supplier, Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur 14.Laxman Yadav S/o Sanguram Yadav Aged About 45 Years Working As Record Supplier, Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur 15.Awadh Ram Yadav S/o Bhewani Ram Yadav Aged About 50 Years
Legal Reasoning
Working As Jamadar, Honble High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur Versus ... Petitioners 1. High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through The Registrar General, High Court, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Principal Secretary, Law, Mahanadi Bhavan, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioners For Respondents No.1 For Respondent No.2/State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Bidya Nand Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Manoj Paranjape, Advocate : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Adv. General Hon'ble Shri , CJ & Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, J. Ramesh Sinha C A V Order Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking for the following reliefs :- 10.1 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass suitable orders that the rules of promotion of the petitioners as laid down in the relevant Service Rules, 2003 and 2015 be only applicable to consider the promotion of the petitioners. 3 / 16 WPS No. 1496 of 2022 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass suitable order(s) to quash the amendment in promotion rules criteria notified in 2017 based on which the impugned notice dated 24.02.2022 has been issued. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass suitable order(s) to quash the impugned notice dated 24.02.2022. 10.5 That, the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to direct the competent authority to consider and issue promotion order to the petitioner from class-IV to Assistant Grade-III on the basis of experience and qualification criteria as envisaged from Rule 2015 read with Rule 2003. 10.6 Any appropriate writ, direction or order in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. By way of instant petition, the petitioners, who are the class IV employees of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, are challenging the Notice No.26 (Mis.)/II-14-1/2021(AG-III Pro.) dated 24-02-2022 issued by the respondent No.1 by which it is notified that written test and skill test for promotion against 69 vacant posts of Assistant Grade-III will be conducted on 05.03.2022 from 11.00 A.M. onwards at CSJA, Bodri, Bilaspur. The petitioners are also aggrieved and challenges the amendment brought in Sr.No.11, First Schedule, Class-III to the Chhattisgarh High Court Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 2017 (henceforth ‘the Rules, 2017’) by which the criteria/norms of promotion of the petitioners working as Class-IV employees of the establishment for promotion to Assistant Grade-III has been amended contrary to the provisions of promotion to Grade-III as was mentioned at clause No. 17 of Amendment incorporated vide No.53 4 / 16 WPS No. 1496 of 2022 (Mis.)/II-15-19/2002 Dated 09-01-2015 of the said Rules read with Rule first made in the year 2003 namely; the Chhattisgarh High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2003 (henceforth ‘the Rules, 2003’) vide Gazette Notification No.5488/II-15- 19/2002 dated 10th December 2003. 3. (i) Learned counsel appearing for the the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were appointed as class-IV employees in the High Court of Chhattisgarh and according to them they have rendered period of 15-20 years service on same pay and posts without any promotion. He would further submit that the Service Rules pertaining to the petitioners were formulated and published through gazette notification in the year 2003 i.e. the Rules, 2003 by which promotion criteria from Class-IV to Assistant Grade-III was prescribed under part-V serial No.7(a). As per the said Rules, the petitioners were entitled to promotion after completion of two years of service in their existing post with educational qualification of either graduate or higher secondary exam pass with Hindi or English Type writing examination. Subsequently, the promotion criteria of class IV employees has been amended vide notification dated 09.01.2015. He would further submit that the same has again been changed pursuant to framing of new rules i.e. the Rules, 2017 by which provision of written test and skill test criteria was inserted with more rigors to qualify. (ii) Learned counsel would submit that thereafter, the petitioners made representations to the competent authority of the High Court praying that 5 / 16 WPS No. 1496 of 2022 the amended criteria of promotion may be withdrawn and their candidature may be considered for promotion on the basis of seniority as was considered in the past. However, without considering the representation of the petitioners, the impugned notice for written test and skill test has been issued. Learned counsel would submit that the old promotion rules i.e. the Rules, 2003 prevailed at the time of appointment of the petitioners ought to be considered for their promotion and any subsequent amendment cannot be given retrospective effect. (iii) To buttress his contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ajit Singh v State of Punjab1, High Court of Delhi and Anr. v A.K. Mahajan and Ors.2, Chairman, Railway Board and others v C.R. Rangadhamaiah and others3, Y.V. Rangaiah and Others v J. Sreenivasa Rao and Others4. 4. (a) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, ex adverso, would submit that the Rules, 2003 prescribed that 75% posts of Assistant Grade-III shall be filled up by direct recruitment through competitive examination and 25% posts shall be filled up by promotion strictly based on merit-cum-seniority from amongst qualified regular Class-IV or contingency paid employees who have completed minimum 2 years of service in the establishment and the minimum qualification and experience was also prescribed. The said rules were amended in 2015 and 75% has been reduced to 70% and 25% has been reduce to 20% and 1 2 3 4