The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a writ petition filed by Laboratory Technicians seeking a direction to the State Government to amend service rules and create promotional avenues. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, held that the creation of posts, structuring of cadres, and amendment of recruitment rules fall exclusively within the executive and legislative domain, and the Court cannot compel the State to exercise such powers.
Case Background
The writ petition, Dr. Om Prakash Sharma & Others v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WPS No. 3214 of 2024), was filed by six Laboratory Technicians working in various government colleges across Chhattisgarh. The petitioners are governed by the M.P. Class III Service Recruitment and Promotion (Mahavidhyala Shakha) Rules, 1974.
The petitioners submitted that they have been working on a single-cadre post for approximately 22 to 25 years without any promotional opportunities. Petitioner No. 1, for instance, joined service in 1985 and was regularized in 1989. Despite possessing higher qualifications, including Master’s degrees and Ph.Ds, and the State treating Laboratory Technicians as “Teaching Posts” for the purpose of superannuation age and vacations, no promotional channel was provided in the 1974 Rules.
The petitioners contended that while other employees in the Higher Education Department have promotional avenues, Laboratory Technicians face career stagnation, retiring on the same post after serving for over 40 years. They approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the authorities to amend the 1974 Rules and create promotional avenues.
Arguments of the Parties
Mr. Somkant Verma and Mr. Rishi Kant Mahobia, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that the State’s inaction is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. They contended that “promotion is a normal incidence and condition of service, essential to maintain efficiency in public employment,” and that the State is constitutionally obligated to create reasonable promotional avenues.
The petitioners argued that the “non-existence of promotional avenues” prejudices not only them but also Laboratory Attendants, who can only be promoted upon the retirement of existing Technicians. They pointed out that in states like West Bengal, Jharkhand, and Bihar, Laboratory Technicians are eligible for promotion to Lecturer or Assistant Professor.
Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate for the State, opposed the petition. He submitted that matters relating to the creation or abolition of posts, structuring of cadres, and determination of sources of recruitment fall “exclusively within the domain of the employer.” He argued that the Court cannot direct the creation of posts or compel the executive to amend service rules.
The State further submitted that the petitioners have not suffered financial loss as they were granted time-bound higher pay scales. The State produced records showing the petitioners received higher pay scales in 2001, 2009, and 2019.
Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench examined the settled legal position regarding the jurisdiction of courts in matters of policy and cadre management. The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others (2008) 10 SCC 1, which held that the creation and abolition of posts lie within the exclusive executive domain.
The Court also relied on Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and another v. Chander Hass and another (2008) 1 SCC 683, quoting the following observation:
“The court cannot direct the creation of posts. Creation and sanction of posts is a prerogative of the executive or legislative authorities and the court cannot arrogate to itself this purely executive or legislative function, and direct creation of posts in any organisation.”
Applying these principles, the High Court observed that the relief sought by the petitioners—a mandamus to amend the 1974 Rules—was “legally untenable.” The Court stated:
“This Court cannot compel the State to create or sanction posts, nor can it mandate amendments to the statutory recruitment rules to introduce new promotional hierarchies.”
Addressing the issue of stagnation, the Bench noted that the petitioners had received financial progression through time-bound pay scales. The Court observed:
“In service jurisprudence, financial progression through higher pay scales, even in the absence of promotion, is recognised as a legitimate method adopted by the employer to address stagnation.”
Regarding the petitioners’ reliance on service structures in other states, the Court held:
“The petitioners’ reliance on alleged promotional practices in other States such as West Bengal, Jharkhand, and Bihar cannot assist them, as inter-State variations in service structures do not confer enforceable rights, nor can they be used to direct this State to adopt similar structures.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that “unless the rule itself is unconstitutional on its face,” the Court cannot interfere with policy matters. The Bench found “no legal justification to issue any direction to the State to amend the 1974 Rules or to create promotional avenues for the petitioners.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. No order as to costs was passed.
