Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, Chhattisgarh High Court
Unconstitutional: Chhattisgarh High Court Strikes Down Rule Debarring Engineering Graduates From Sub-Engineer Posts
|The Court said the restriction excluding degree holders undermined the principles of fairness, equal opportunity and constitutional rights of eligible candidates.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has declared as ultra vires and unconstitutional Rule 8(II), Column (5), Schedule-III, Serial No. 1 of the Chhattisgarh Public Health Engineering Department (Non-Gazetted) Service Rules, 2016, to the extent it excludes degree holders in engineering from applying for the post of Sub-Engineer. The Court held that such exclusion was unreasonable, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed, “It is manifest that the exclusion of degree holders who are better with the requisite knowledge and technical skills is not only unreasonable but also counter productive to the objective of recruiting competent individuals for the post. This arbitrary restriction undermines the principles of fairness and equal opportunity. Even, the same is also in clear violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court added, “It is the trite law that any classification made by the State based on intelligible differentia and must bear a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It is also well settled that any eligibility criteria must bear a reasonable correlation with the functional recruitment of the posts, the nature of the duties to be performed and the aptitudes necessary to fulfill those duties effectively.”
Advocate Ajay Shrivastava appeared for the Petitioners, while Deputy Advocate General Shashank Thakur represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioners, holding graduate degrees in engineering, had applied for the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil/Electrical/Mechanical) in the Public Health Engineering Department of the State of Chhattisgarh. The recruitment was governed by the 2016 Rules, which mandated only a three-year diploma in engineering as the prescribed qualification, thereby excluding engineering graduates.
The Petitioners contended that earlier recruitment notices under the 2012 Rules had allowed graduates to participate because a diploma was treated as the minimum qualification. However, in the 2016 Rules and current advertisement, the word “minimum” was omitted, which resulted in the higher qualified candidates being excluded, despite their superior technical knowledge.
The Petitioners further submitted that other departments of the State, including the Public Works Department and Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL), permitted both diploma and degree holders to apply for the same post.
In response, the State contended that the Rules of 2016 simply reiterated the eligibility conditions of earlier rules and that the prescribed qualification for direct recruitment was always a diploma. The State further submitted that 5% of the posts filled through promotion did allow diploma or degree holders, and hence, there was no discrimination.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court examined Rule 8(II) of the 2016 Rules, as read with Schedule-III, Serial No. 1, which prescribed “Three years diploma” as the sole qualification, and found this exclusion of degree holders irrational and disproportionate to the object of recruitment.
The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), where it had been held that manifest arbitrariness must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle, and when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary.
Referring to the recruitment practices of other State departments where both diploma and degree holders were eligible, the Court noted that the restriction imposed solely by the Public Health Engineering Department lacked any rational basis. “…Other departments of the State e.g. Department of Public Works and CSPDCL for the post of Sub-Engineer, the eligibility criteria permits both Diploma as well as Degree holders. Thus, the act of the State in excluding the Degree holders for recruitment on the post of Sub-Engineer in the department of Public Health and Engineering is an act of discrimination”, the Court observed.
The Court held, “Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons made hereinabove, the Rule 8 (II) Column (5) of Schedule-III, Serial No. 1 Sub-Engineer (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) of the Rules 2016 published in the Gazette Notification dated 30/12/2016 is declared as illegal, without jurisdiction and Ultra-Vires.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petitions, while directing, "Since, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the candidates having the degree in engineering have participated in the recruitment process, and this Court declared the Rule 8 (II) Column (5) of Schedule-III, Serial No. 1 Sub-Engineer (Civil/Mechanical/ Electrical) of the Rules 2016 published in the Gazette Notification dated 30/12/2016 as Ultra Vires, the respondent’s authorities are directed to continue with the further selection process, subject to the condition that the candidates fulfill other requisite criteria as may be prescribed by the Respondents’ Department in the advertisement."
Cause Title: Arvind Kumar & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:30088-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Ajay Shrivastava, G.P. Mathur, Pratibha Sahu
Respondents: Deputy Advocate General Shashank Thakur; Advocates Avinash Singh, Uttam Pandey, Bharat Sharma