Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31823-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.07.10 17:10:49 +0530 WA No. 447 of 2025 Smt.Padmini Sinha D/o Mohit Ram Sinha Aged About 47 Years Working As Supervisor, Women And Child Development Department R/o Village Sarkanda, Police Station And Block Pithora District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) --- Appellant versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Women And Child Development Department Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director, Women And Child Development Department, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Project Officer Integrated Child Development Program (Icds) Mainpur District- Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) 4 - The District Program Officer Women And Child Development Department District Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondents WA No. 448 of 2025 1 - Ku. Ritu Sahu D/o Late Raju Sahu Aged About 36 Years Working As Supervisor, Under The Office Of Women And Child Development Department, Posted At I.C.D.S. Project -Chura, Sector Khadma, District Gariyaband (C.G.) R/o Shivalaya Park Colony, Khaira Chowk, 2 Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 09)
Legal Reasoning
2 - Rekha Dewangan W/o Shri Chetanlal Dewangan Aged About 46 Years Working As Supervisor, Under The Office Of Women And Child Development Department, Posted At I.C.D.S. Project - Chura, Sector- Charauda, District Gariyaband (C.G.) R/o Village Bhendari, Block Magariod, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 01) 3 - Smt. Yogeshwari Ghidaude (Before Marriage Named As Yogeshwari Ogre) W/o Shri Ashish Ghidaude Aged About 33 Years Working As Supervisor, Under The Office Of Women And Child Development Department, Posted At I.C.D.S. Project -Chura, Sector Panduka, District Gariyaband (C.G.) R/o Village Khapri, Post Uparwara, Tahsil Aarang, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 05) 4 - Smt. Roshni Narang W/o Shri Chandrama Prasad Narang Aged About 43 Years Working As Supervisor, Under The Office Of Women And Child Development Department, Posted At I.C.D.S. Project -Chura, Sector Kosmi, District Gariyaband (C.G.) R/o Nagar Panchayat Chura, Housing Board Colony H-2, Qtr. No.4, Tahsil Chura, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 04) 5 - Smt. Kaushal Verma W/o Shri Nirmal Kumar Verma Aged About 51 Years Working As Supervisor, Under The Office Of Women And Child Development Department, Posted At I.C.D.S. Project - Chura, Sector- Sivni, District Gariyaband (C.G.) R/o Thakur Diya Chowk, Ward No.10, Near Old Narayana Hospital Komakhan Road, Village Chura, District Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 10) 6 - Smt. Kunti Sahu D/o Shri Chanduram Sahu Aged About 47 Years Working As Supervisor, Under The Office Of Women And Child Development Department, Posted At I.C.D.S. Project -Chura, Sector Chura, District Gariyaband (C.G.) R/o Nagar Panchayat Chura, Housing Board Colony H-1, Tahsil Chura, District - Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 02) 3 7 - Smt. Lukeshwari Chandrakar W/o Shri Parasram Chandrakar Aged About 38 Years Working As Supervisor, Under The Office Of Women And Child Development Department, Posted At I.C.D.S. Project -Chura, Sector Mudagaon, District Gariyaband (C.G.) R/o Village Saradih, Post Belsonda, Tahsil Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No. 03) ---Appellants Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Women And Child Development Department, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Program Officer Women And Child Development Department, Gariyaband, District -Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The District Program Officer Women And Child Development Department, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The District Program Officer Women And Child Development Department, Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, District- Gaurela-Pendra- Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Jyoti Soni W/o Shri Bhupendra Puri Goswami Aged About 38 Years Working As Supervisor, Under The Office Of Women And Child Development Department, Posted At I.C.D.S. Project Pali, Sector - Pali, District Korba (C.G.) R/o Behind Sindhi Dharamshala, Chaterjee Gali, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Vijaya Sahu W/o Shri Kamal Prasad Sahu Aged About 45 Years Working As Supervisor, Under The Office Of Women And Child Development Department, Posted At I.C.D.S. Project Pali, Sector - Pali, District Korba (C.G.) R/o Sahara India Office Road, Rajkishore Nagar, Lingiyadih, S E C L, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Smt. Savita Devi Tripathi W/o Shri Vaibhav Sahu Aged About 35 Years Working As Supervisor, Under The Office Of Women And Child 4 Development Department, Posted At I.C.D.S. Project Pali, Sector - Pali, District Korba (C.G.) R/o Vinoba Nagar, L-2, Dipupara, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 9 - Smt. Anjani Sharma W/o Shri Prashant Dubey Aged About 34 Years Working As Supervisor, Under The Office Of Women And Child Development Department, Posted At I.C.D.S. Project Gaurela, District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi (C.G.) R/o Village And Post Sonasilli, Police Station Pithaura, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Appellants : Mr.Galib Dwivedi and Mr.Santham Awasthi, Advocates For : Mr.Y.S.Thakur, Additional Advocate General Respondents/State with Mr.Sanghrash Pandey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10.07.2025 1. Heard Mr.Galib Dwivedi and Mr.Santham Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr.Y.S.Thakur, learned Additional Advocate with Mr.Sanghrash Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State on I.A.No.01/2025 in WA No.448/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 01 days in filing the writ appeal. 2. On due consideration, I.A.No.01/2025 is allowed. Delay is condoned. 3. Since WA No.447/2025 is within limitation, I.A.No.01/2025 stands 5
Decision
disposed of. 4. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ appeals are heard finally. 5. The appellants have filed this writ appeals against the order dated 11.04.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.8349/2023 and 5947/2023 by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein. 6. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that pursuant to the selection process initiated by the respondent authorities, for the post of Supervisor in the Department of Women and Child Development, the appellants applied and duly qualified in the said process and on the basis of the same, the appointment orders were issued. According to Clause 14 of the appointment order, the persons who opted for the post in scheduled area cannot be transferred to a non-scheduled area. The respondent authorities incorporated the said Clause in the appointment order in an illegal and arbitrary manner and the same is in violation of Article 14, 15, 16 of the Constitution of India. The appellants filed writ petitions seeking quashment of the condition of the appointment order i.e. the writ petitioners cannot be transferred to non-scheduled area. The said writ petitions were dismissed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, these writ appeals. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned Single Judge erred in law and in fact by dismissing the writ petitions and 6 upholding the condition in the appellants appointment orders restricting their transfer from Scheduled Areas to Non-Scheduled Areas for their entire service tenure, without adequately appreciating that the said condition is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary, and ultra vires the Chhattisgarh Women and Child Development Department Executive Class III (Non-Gazetted) Service Rules, 2008 ("Service Rules, 2008"). They further submitted that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the settled principle of law that statutory service roles framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, have the force of law and cannot be amended, modified, or overridden by administrative instructions or conditions incorporated in an appointment order. The impugned condition, lacking any foundation in the Service Rules, 2008, is therefore without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Learned Single Judge erred in heavily relying on the fact that the appellants had opted for posting in Scheduled Areas as per the advertisement. An initial option for a posting preference cannot be legally construed as consent to a lifelong, immutable restriction on transferability, especially when such a restriction is not stipulated in the governing Service Rules 2008, and amounts to an arbitrary alteration of a fundamental incident of service, i.e., transferability. They also submitted that the finding of learned Single Judge that the appellants had "availed the relaxation of cut off marks as the candidates opted for posting at scheduled area" and therefore "cannot be allowed to have the best of both worlds" is flawed. 7 Firstly, this was a submission by the respondents and not an admitted fact established on record with clear linkage to a lifelong transfer ban. Secondly, even if any relaxation was availed for an initial posting, it cannot legally validate a lifelong service condition that is otherwise contrary to statutory rules and fundamental rights. They further contended that learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that a lifelong ban on transfer from Scheduled Areas, solely based on an initial option at the time of appointment and not supported by any rule, is manifestly arbitrary, unjust, and unduly harsh, significantly impacting the appellants career progression, personal lives, and access to amenities available in Non-Scheduled Areas. Such a condition fetters the administrative discretion of the respondents to transfer employees in administrative exigencies or on compassionate grounds as per general transfer policies. They also contended that learned Single Judge did not sufficiently consider that cause of action for challenging the illegal restriction on transfer is a recurring one, as it continuously affects the appellants service conditions. Therefore, mere passage of time since appointment does not extinguish their right to seek relief against an ongoing illegality. As such, the writ appeals deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed/set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General along with learned Government Advocate appearing for the 8 respondents/State oppose the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and submit that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein, which warrants no interference by this Court. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has observed that while issuing the advertisement itself, the respondent authorities categorically stated that the candidates will be posted as per the choice filled by them. In fact, the advertisement issued in the year 2013 and the appointment orders were issued in the year 2014 and the writ petitioners are rendering their services in the department since last more than a decade and they have never raised any objection with regard to their posting and they preferred these petitions in the year 2023 seeking their posting in a non-scheduled area. It is also noteworthy to mention here that the writ petitioners have availed the relaxation of cut off marks as a candidate opted for posting at scheduled area. Thus, they cannot be allowed to have the best of both worlds. The action on the part of the respondent authorities is just and proper and there is no illegality at all. Learned Single also observed that since the writ petitioners consciously 9 participated in the selection process, they cannot be allowed to turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome. It is the trite law that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the Rules, the candidates had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the employer for making selection. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petitions, also perusing the documents appended with writ appeals and the findings recorded by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants / writ petitioners, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeals being devoid of merit are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu