The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that eligibility criteria for recruitment must bear a rational and reasonable correlation with the job functions, duties, and necessary aptitudes for the post. Declaring Rule 8(II), Column (5) of Schedule-III, Serial No. 1 of the Chhattisgarh Public Health Engineering (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2016, as ultra vires, the Court struck down the clause which restricted eligibility for the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) to only diploma holders.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru delivered the judgment while allowing two writ petitions (WPS No. 1983 of 2025 and WPS No. 2012 of 2025) filed by engineering graduates who were barred from participating in the recruitment process under the said rule.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, all holding bachelor’s degrees in engineering, sought to participate in the recruitment examination for the post of Sub-Engineer scheduled for April 27, 2025, under the Public Health Engineering Department. They challenged the validity of Rule 8(II), Column (5) of Schedule-III, which mandated a three-year diploma in the relevant branch of engineering as the only prescribed qualification, effectively excluding degree holders.
The petitioners contended that the restriction was arbitrary and discriminatory, especially when higher qualifications should logically be acceptable if not preferable. They submitted that earlier versions of the rules and advertisements had used the phrase “minimum qualification,” allowing degree holders to apply. Additionally, they pointed out that in other government departments, such as the Public Works Department and CSPDCL, both diploma and degree holders were permitted to apply for the post of Sub-Engineer.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Puneet Sharma & Others v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. [(2021) 16 SCC 340], where it was held that excluding degree holders from similar posts was unsustainable.
Respondents’ Submissions
Counsel for the State opposed the petitions, submitting that the same qualification—three-year diploma—had been in place under the previous 1979 and 2012 recruitment rules. The 2016 Rules continued this standard without change. It was also submitted that while degree holders are considered for promotion under a 5% departmental quota, the direct recruitment rule specifically provided for diploma holders only.
Relying on judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court (Ankita Thakur & Anr. v. H.P. Staff Selection Commission, 2023 SCC Online SC 1472; Ms. Durgawati v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 4292/2019), the State contended there was no illegality in prescribing such criteria.
The Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (CG Vyapam), which is the recruiting agency, stated it was only following instructions issued by the department as per the rules.
Court’s Analysis
The Court noted that the exclusion of engineering graduates—who possess greater technical knowledge and skill—was not only unreasonable but also counterproductive to the goal of selecting competent candidates. It held that such exclusion violates Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Referring to Shayara Bano v. Union of India [(2017) 9 SCC 1], the Court reiterated that even subordinate legislation can be struck down if it is manifestly arbitrary. The bench observed:
“This arbitrary restriction undermines the principles of fairness and equal opportunity… Any eligibility criteria must bear a reasonable corelation with the functional recruitment of the posts, the nature of the duties to be performed and the aptitudes necessary to fulfill those duties effectively.”
It further found that there was no rational basis for allowing both diploma and degree holders under the 5% promotional quota while excluding degree holders entirely from direct recruitment.
Decision
Accordingly, the Court declared Rule 8(II), Column (5) of Schedule-III, Serial No. 1 of the 2016 Rules as illegal, without jurisdiction, and ultra vires. As a result, the recruitment advertisement dated January 15, 2025, issued by the department must now accommodate engineering graduates.
Since an interim order had already allowed such candidates to submit applications before April 1, 2025, the Court directed the authorities to continue the selection process, ensuring all candidates—including degree holders—are evaluated per the revised understanding, provided they meet the other requisite conditions.
Both writ petitions were allowed.
