Amendment To Promotion Rules To Improve Efficiency Not Open To Judicial Review Unless Arbitrary: Chhattisgarh High Court

The High Court was hearing a writ petition challenging an amendment to the Chhattisgarh Public Works Department (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2016, which included diploma/degree holder Field Assistants of work-charged establishments within the feeder category for promotion to the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil).

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, while declining to interfere, observed: “It is a settled principle of constitutional law that the authority competent to frame service rules is equally competent to amend them. Judicial review of subordinate legislation is confined to limited grounds, namely: (i) lack of legislative competence, (ii) violation of fundamental rights, (iii) repugnancy to parent statute, or (iv) manifest arbitrariness”.

Advocate Mateen Siddiqui appeared for the petitioners. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General, represented the respondents.

Background

The petitioners were working as Tracer (Civil) and Assistant Draftsman (Civil) in the Public Works Department, State of Chhattisgarh. Their service conditions were governed by the Chhattisgarh Public Works Department (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2016, under which the promotional post for Tracer/Assistant Draftsman is Sub-Engineer (Civil).

Under the Rules, 2016, 95% of Sub-Engineer (Civil) posts are to be filled by direct recruitment and 5% by promotion. Schedule-IV provided that diploma/degree holder Tracer/Assistant Draftsman, etc., working on lower posts with five years’ experience were eligible for promotion.

By notification, the State amended Schedule-IV to additionally include “Diploma holder/Degree holder Field Assistant of Work Charged Establishment” as eligible for promotion. Consequential promotion orders were thereafter issued promoting Field Assistants of work-charged establishment to the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil).

The petitioners challenged the amendment and promotions on the ground that work-charged employees are not regular government servants and are excluded under the Chhattisgarh Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2003. They further contended that the private respondents were never regularised and had not completed five years of regular service, and that equating work-charged employees with regularly recruited employees violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The State opposed the petition, contending that the amendment was a policy decision taken in exercise of powers under Article 309 to rectify stagnation of eligible work-charged employees who had been excluded from the promotional channel due to omission in the 2016 Rules. The State also objected to delay and laches.

Court’s Observation

The High Court identified the core issue as the constitutionality of the amendment extending promotional eligibility to work-charged employees.

The Bench noted the respondents’ submission that the amendment was a policy decision taken under Article 309 of the Constitution, and that courts ordinarily refrain from interfering with such policy decisions relating to service conditions and promotions unless there is a clear violation of constitutional principles or manifest injustice.

The Court recorded that the State had provided a rational explanation for the amendment, stating that it was intended to rectify stagnation of eligible work-charged employees who had been left out of the promotional channel due to exclusionary language of the earlier rules. The amendment was held to be a corrective measure to ensure that qualified employees were not denied career progression on account of drafting omissions in the Rules.

The Bench reiterated that the authority competent to frame service rules is equally competent to amend them, and that judicial review of subordinate legislation is confined to limited grounds. It held that the petitioners had failed to establish a lack of legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights, repugnancy to the parent statute, or manifest arbitrariness.

On delay, the Court noted that the petitioners were aware of the amendment and promotions and had, instead of challenging them, submitted representations seeking enhancement of promotional quota, which amounted to acquiescence.

Relying on settled law on delay and laches in service matters, the Court held that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

On merits, the Court reiterated that no government servant has a vested right to promotion and that mere chances of promotion do not constitute a condition of service. It held that the petitioners’ grievance essentially related to the reduction of promotional prospects owing to the inclusion of another feeder category, which does not confer an enforceable right.

The Bench further rejected the equality challenge, holding that the classification introduced by the amendment was based on educational qualification and experience, and not solely on the nature of the establishment. The Field Assistants of work-charged establishments were included only if they possessed the same diploma/degree and experience prescribed under the Rules, thereby satisfying the test of reasonable classification under Article 14.

The Court also held that the Promotion Rules, 2003, could not be read in isolation to defeat the Recruitment Rules, once the Recruitment Rules themselves include a feeder category.

Conclusion

The High Court held that the impugned amendment dated 22.01.2022 had been validly made in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution and did not suffer from arbitrariness or unconstitutionality.

Finding no illegality in the inclusion of Field Assistants of work-charged establishments as a feeder category or in the consequential promotion orders, and holding that the petition suffered from gross delay and laches, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Cause Title: Bashil Minj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:3713-DB)

Appearances

Petitioners: Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate

Respondents: Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General, Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate; Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment