In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court, led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, dismissed petitions challenging the validity of the Chhattisgarh School Education (Academic and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019. The court ruled that “chances of promotion cannot be claimed as a right,” reaffirming the constitutional validity of the contested provisions.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, a group of lecturers from the School Education Department (E-Cadre), challenged Entry 18 of Schedule II of the 2019 Rules, which reserves 30% of promotions to the post of Principal for Lecturers from the Local Body (LB) cadre. The petitioners contended that this classification undermines their promotional opportunities and violates their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The dispute arose after the Chhattisgarh government absorbed Local Body teachers into the School Education Department in 2018 and designated them as Lecturer (LB) cadre. The petitioners argued that this categorization creates an arbitrary class distinction and deprives them of fair promotional avenues.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Constitutionality of Entry 18 of Schedule II (2019 Rules):
The petitioners argued that the rules violate the principle of equality by favoring LB cadre lecturers, who were absorbed later, over long-serving E-cadre lecturers.
2. Right to Promotion:
They claimed that the allocation of 30% of Principal promotions to LB cadre lecturers adversely affects their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16.
3. Policy Decision and Quota System:
The court examined whether the state’s policy of creating a quota for LB cadre lecturers is within its legislative competence and adheres to constitutional principles.
Key Observations of the Court
1. On Right to Promotion:
The court held that while employees have a right to be considered for promotion, “chances of promotion cannot be claimed as a right.” The court quoted the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dwarika Prasad v. Union of India: “The right to fair and equal consideration for promotion is a legal and fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16. However, the mere chance of promotion is not a guaranteed right.”
2. Policy Justification:
The court affirmed that the government’s decision to allocate quotas for LB cadre lecturers is a policy matter. It emphasized that such decisions fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the state, provided they are not arbitrary or unconstitutional.
3. Presumption of Constitutionality:
Relying on precedents, the court emphasized the presumption in favor of the constitutionality of legislative provisions. It stated: “No enactment can be struck down by just saying it is arbitrary or unreasonable unless a constitutional infirmity is evident.”
4. Manifest Arbitrariness:
The court reiterated that legislation can only be invalidated on grounds of manifest arbitrariness or if it violates constitutional rights. It cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Shayara Bano v. Union of India to stress this point.
Decision
The court dismissed the petitions (WPS No. 5973/2023 and WPS No. 7678/2023), holding that the classification between E-cadre and LB cadre lecturers is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional. It ruled that the provisions of the 2019 Rules, including the contested quota system, are valid and in line with constitutional principles.
Parties Involved
– Petitioners: Rajesh Kumar Sharma and 16 other E-cadre lecturers, represented by Senior Advocate Rajeev Shrivastava and Advocate Sourabh Sahu.
– Respondents: The State of Chhattisgarh, represented by Deputy Advocate General Shashank Thakur, and the Union of India, represented by Central Government Counsel Annapurna Tiwari.
