Gouri Shankar Chourasiya v. High Court of Chhattisgarh and Others), and connected matter, wh
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.07.29 16:52:41 +0530 2025:CGHC:36391-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 530 of 2025 Gouri Shankar Chourasiya S/o Mulchand Chourasiya Aged About 55 Years Posted As Asstt Grade 1, High Court Establishment, R/o Lig 182, Devrikhurd, P.S. Torva, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General, Bodri, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Registrar General High Court Of C.G. Bodri, , District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Dev Sharan Dilliwar Presently Posted As Assistant Registrar,court Establishment, Bodri, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sunil Kumar Verma Presently Posted As Assistant Registrar, High Court Eastablishment, Bodri, Bilaspur ( C.G. ). 5 - Vivek Shrivastava Presently Posted As Section OfÏcer, High Court Eastablishment, Bodri Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Narottam Sahu Presently Posted As Section OfÏcer, High Court Establishment, Bodri, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Marhas, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28.07.2025 1. 2. Heard Mr. Kshitij Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.S. Marhas, learned counsel for respondent. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1332 of 2013 (Gouri Shankar Chourasiya vs. High Court of Chhattisgarh and Others), and connected matter, whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is presently working on the post of Section OfÏcer in this High Court. He was initially appointed on 06.09.1990 on the post of Sales Ameen in District Court Establish, Jagadalpur (erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh). He was promoted on the post of Lower Division Clerk, vide order dated 21.09.1995 and pay scale was given from 950-20-1150-25-1400 to 1150- 30-1210-40-1450- 50-1800, thereafter was holding post of Process Writer. The services of the appellant was regularized vide order dated 07.04.1999 in the said Establishment. On 17.01.2001, the respondent/Additional Registrar, High Court of Chhattisgarh, issued a letter to the District & Sessions Judge, Raipur/ Raigarh/ Rajnandgoan/ Durg/ Bastar/ Sarguja/ Bilaspur to send list of Class-III employees posted in their Establishment with their 3 complete service particulars along with their period of experience, to serve in the High Court of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur with a request to deal with the same on top priority basis and to send the information urgently. The appellant expressed his willingness and vide note-sheet dated 22.02.2001, respondent No.2 short listed the name of the appellant with a specific observation that some of the employees do not have the qualification of Assistant Grade-III, i.e., Bachelor degree with English & Hindi typing, and looking to urgent nature of circumstances it was felt necessary that such qualification may be relaxed in the interest of administration. Hon'ble the Chief Justice was empowered to relax the qualification under Rule-21 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, OfÏcers and Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service (Classification, Control, Appeal & Conduct) Rules, 1996 (for short, the Rules of 1996) and the matter was sent for approval of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, and same was duly approved and minimum qualification was relaxed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. On 22.02.2001, the appellant was appointed in the establishment of High Court of Chhattisgarh on deputation for a period of two years on post of Assistant-Grade-III. After successful completion of the said period, the respondent No. 1 issued an order dated 06.11.2003, wherein it was categorically stated that if an employee is absorbed in the High Court Establishment, then his services shall be governed as per the Rule 12(2)(c) of the of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961 (for short, the Rules of 1961). The respondent No. 1 also issued an order dated 28.04.2004 whereby the appellant along with the respondent No. 3 to 5 were absorbed in the High Court Establishment in their respective posts, but with respect to the appellant and other two employees namely Sanjay Kumar Sinha and Kunwar Singh Angare, they were directed to be 4 absorbed on the Establishment of the High Court against the post of AG- III, subject to the condition that they pass Hindi or English Typing and were allowed to appear in the Hindi or english Tying Examination and to submit their pass certificate before the expiry of term of their deputation and their seniority was to be counted on the Establishment of the High Court w.e.f. the date of their passing of Hindi or English Typing. Thereafter a gradation list of Assistant Grade-III dated 01.05.2004 was published, wherein the juniors were kept over and above the senior employees. 4. Being aggrieved by the said Gradation list, non-consideration of the service period from the initial date of appointment i.e., from the period of initial appointment in District Court establishment, and also being aggrieved by the provisions of Rule 12 (2)(c) of the Rules of 1961, the respondents No. 3 and 6, along with the other similarly situated persons challenged the same before this Hon'ble Court under the writ jurisdiction and same was registered as WP. No. 3926/2005. The provisions of Rule 12(2)(c) was also categorically challenged being arbitrary and ultra vires of Constitution of India. A learned Division Bench of this High Court passed the judgment dated 19.10.2011, wherein from paragraphs 8 to 10, the Bench had dealt with the aforesaid issue, and thereby had examined the legality of the same on the basis of various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and thereby this Hon'ble Court has struck down the words "whichever is later” of the Clause (c) of Rule 12(2) of the Rules 1961 in paragraph 20 the judgment. The learned Division Bench, vide paragraph 18 of the judgment has categorically dealt with the objection of the respondent pursuant to the fact that the writ petitioners infact were AG-III employees. The appellant on the other hand was pursuing his grievance before the respondent No. 1 and had filed a 5 representation dated 05.05.2004 against the same. After passing of the aforesaid order of this Court, the respondent No. 1 issued the impugned revised gradation list whereby the appellant has been placed below the Respondent No. 3 to 5 who are junior to him, thus the appellant duly made a representation before the respondent No.2, but the respondent No.2 has completely over looked the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court and rejected the representation of the appellant in an adamant manner, even though same is contrary to the Rules 12 (2) (c) of the Rules, 1961 as amended in light of the aforesaid judgment vide GAD Notification dated 10.01.2012 w.e.f. 14.12.1999. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 issued revised gradation list but wrongly, arbitrarily and discriminatorily reduced the seniority of the appellant from date of appointment to the date of passing of typing examination, and also vide order dated 09.10.2012, reverted back the appellant from the post of Assistant Grade-I to Assistant Grade-II and the respondent No.2, issued the impugned revised gradation list dated 18.10.2013 in compliance of order passed by this Court. 5. Thereafter, the appellant duly filed representations dated 18.10.2012, 29.10.2012 with reminder dated 10.12.2012 against the aforesaid actions, but contrary to the governing rules, circulars and judgment passed by a Division Bench of this High Court the representation of the appellant was rejected and the impugned order dated 08.02.2013 was issued to the petitioner/appellant communicating the same. The appellant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders and gradation list, preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashment of the impugned order dated 18.10.2012 and impugned order dated 08.02.2013. The appellant also prayed for grant of seniority in cadre of Assistant Grade-III with effect from 14.09.1990 above the 6 respondent-Dev Sharan Dilliwar. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 01.05.2025 and dismissed the petition i.e. WPS No. 1332 of 2013 preferred by the appellant / writ petitioner. Hence this writ appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent No. 1 and 2 have arbitrarily, wrongly and discriminatorily rejected the claim of the appellant. The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the appellant and similarly situated persons were granted exemption by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court in having requisite qualification on appointment on the post of A.G.-III in the High Court Establishment due to emergent need of staff, as such later condition so imposed is itself arbitrary and void ab initio. The learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that after successful completion of the two years of deputation period, the respondents No. 1 and 2 issued an order dated 06.11.2003, wherein it was categorically stated that if an employee is absorbed in the High Court Establishment, then his services shall be governed as per the Rule 12 (2) (c) of the Rules of 1961, therefore administrative decisions or instructions cannot override the statutory Rules, i.e., Rules-1961, which is a settled position of law. Further, the respondents No. 1 and 2 have arbitrarily and wrongly passed the order dated 28.04.2004 with the impugned condition that their seniority shall be counted on the Establishment of the High Court with effect from the date of their passing examination if Hindi or English Typing, which in light of exemption granted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice cannot sustain, as while granting such exemption there was no such condition was imposed that their seniority would be counted from day of passing of aforesaid examination. The learned Single Judge has miserably failed to appreciate the fact that appellant had duly filed a 7 representation dated 05.05.2004 before the respondent No.2 therefore it
Decision
is unjust and unfair to say that there was delay in filing of the writ petition. Impugned actions of the respondent No. 1 and 2 was duly challenged before a learned Division Bench of this Court by the similarly situated persons, wherein, in WPNo. 3926/2005 vide judgment dated 19.10.2011, from Paras 8 to 14, the Hon'ble Court had dealt with the issue, and has examined the legality of the same on the basis of various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The learned Single Judge has also failed to appreciate the dictum of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19.10.2011, wherein from paragraphs 8 to 14, the Hon'ble Court had dealt with the aforesaid issue, and thereby has examined the legality of the same on the basis of various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and have come to the conclusion that this Hon'ble Court has struck down word "whichever is later" of the Clause (c) of Rule 12 (2) of the Rules 1961 in paragraph 20 of the judgment. Lastly, the appellant is working on his post with utmost sincerity and honesty and have ACR of "Good", "Very-Good" & "Outstanding” remarks, therefore hampering with service period of almost 15 years merely on the basis of an administrative order, is highly detrimental, unjust and unfair to him. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge as also the documents 8 appended with the appeal as well as the writ petition. 9. It is not disputed that the services of the appellant/writ petitioner was absorbed in the Establishment of the High Court on the post of Assistant Grade III vide order dated 28.04.2004 subject to the condition that he would submit Hindi or English Typing pass certificate and his seniority will be counted in the Establishment w.e.f. the date of his passing examination of English or Hindi Typing. In compliance of the order passed by a Division Bench of this High Court, the gradation list was corrected and the past service of the petitioner was also considered. However, since the essential qualification for appointment as AG-III as per the Chhattisgarh High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2003, is graduate and knowledge of English and Hindi typing with proof and one year Diploma Courses from ITI or any equivalent board/University, as such, the petitioner was granted seniority from the date he acquired the requisite qualification for appointment. It appears that the appellant herein acquired the qualification of typing only on 07.02.2005. Even the order dated 29.09.2005 by which he was absorbed w.e.f. the date he passed the typing examination, has also not been challenged. 10. There is no disagreement with respect to the fact that passing typing examination was an essential qualification for appointment on the post of AG-III which the appellant did not possessed, however, the High Court, taking a lenient view, allowed him to continue on deputation subject to the condition of passing typing examination before expiry of the deputation period vide order dated 29.04.2004 and the date on which the appellant passed the said examination, he was granted the seniority. The appellant has also not challenged the order dated 28.04.2004 by 9 which it was clarified that their seniority would be counted from the date he passes English/Hindi Typing. The note sheet (Annexure P/4 to the writ petition) itself indicates that some employees did not had the essential qualification but looking to the emergent situation, as the High Court was at its infancy, to meet the requirement of manpower, relaxation was granted under Rule 21 of the Rules of 1996. However, that relaxation cannot be construed to be giving a go-bye to the essential requirement for ever but the employees who lacked essential qualification were allowed to be appointed on deputation basis for a period of two years which is evident from the order dated 22.02.2001 (Annexure P/5 to the writ petition). The appellant alongwith other two employees namely Sanjay Kumar Sinha and Kunwar Singh Angare were also absorbed on the Establishment of the High Court subject to the condition that they will have to pass Hindi or English typing examination before the expiry of term of their deputation and it was specifically mentioned that their seniority shall be counted on the Establishment of the High Court w.e.f date of their passing the English/Hindi examination. The said order dated 28.04.2004 has never been put to challenge by the appellant herein. 11. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that since the appellant did not had the essential qualification for appointment on the post of AG- III, therefore, he cannot claim benefit of seniority after absorption invoking Rule 12(2)(c) of the Rules of 1961 as the Rules clearly provide that the candidate who is holding same or equivalent grade on regular basis inhis parent department on absorption is entitled to get seniority from the period he was on deputation. 12. We fully concur with the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge 10 while dismissing the writ petition and as such, this appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet