A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru of the Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that statutory rules framed in the interest of public good cannot be struck down solely because they cause hardship to an individual. The court dismissed a petition challenging amendments to promotion rules for Class IV employees of the High Court, emphasizing that the changes were made to ensure merit-based promotions and efficient functioning of the registry.
Background of the Case
The case, WPS No. 1496 of 2022, was filed by 15 Class IV employees of the Chhattisgarh High Court, including staff car drivers, record suppliers, and peons, seeking to quash the amendment in the promotion rules under the Chhattisgarh High Court Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Conduct) Rules, 2017. The petitioners challenged the impugned notice dated February 24, 2022, which required a written and skill test for promotion to Assistant Grade-III against 69 vacant posts.
The petitioners contended that their promotion should be governed by the 2003 and 2015 service rules, which primarily considered experience and seniority, rather than the new requirement of written and skill tests introduced in 2017.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issues before the court were:
Whether the amendment to the 2017 promotion rules was legally valid.
Whether the new criteria, requiring a written and skill test, could be applied retrospectively to employees hired under previous rules.
Whether the changes violated the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by imposing stricter conditions on employees who had served for years without promotion.
Arguments by Petitioners
Represented by Advocate Mr. Bidya Nand Mishra, the petitioners argued that the 2017 rules unfairly altered their career progression. They contended:
The 2003 rules required only two years of service and basic qualifications for promotion.
The 2015 amendment slightly modified the promotion structure but did not introduce rigorous tests.
The 2017 rules imposed stringent written and skill tests, making it difficult for experienced employees to secure promotions.
Any amendment to service rules should not adversely affect existing employees retrospectively.
The petitioners relied on precedents, including Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab (1999), A.K. Mahajan case (2009), and Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao (1983), arguing that recruitment and promotion must be based on existing rules at the time of appointment.
Arguments by Respondents
Advocate Mr. Manoj Paranjape appeared for the High Court administration, while Deputy Advocate General Mr. Shashank Thakur represented the State of Chhattisgarh.
The respondents contended:
The 2017 rules were framed to ensure merit-based promotions and efficient functioning of the High Court.
The amendments were applied prospectively, not retrospectively, as the petitioners had voluntarily participated in the selection process.
Participation in the exam without protest amounts to waiver of the right to challenge the selection criteria.
The changes did not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as they applied uniformly to all employees.
Court’s Decision
The bench ruled against the petitioners, holding that:
The amendment was made for general good and not targeted at individuals.
Once employees participated in the selection process, they could not later challenge the rules governing the process.
Judicial review does not extend to prescribing or modifying qualifications set by the employer.
The petitioners failed to demonstrate that the rules violated constitutional principles or were arbitrary.
Key Observations from the Judgment
“If the Rules made for general good, cause hardship to an individual, the same could not be a ground for striking down the said Rules.”
“The statutory authority is entitled to frame rules laying down the terms and conditions of service as also the qualifications essential for holding a particular post.”
“A person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome.”
