1 2025:CGHC:2144-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 247 of 2025 1 - Pankaj Kumar Bagde S/o Shri Prakash Rao Bagde Aged About 27 Years R/o House No. 64, Near Janak Nandini Dharamshala, Station Ward, Bhatapara, Distt - Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh, 493118 2 - Shashank Kumar S/o Ganesh Prasad Aged About 27 Years R/o House No. 04, Tehsil - Manpur, Post - Dokla, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 491229 ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary (Law), Department of Law, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - High Court of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Prakant Sethi, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General with Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.14 17:50:51 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Prakant Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1, Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 as well as Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. The petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s) in this petition: “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relation to the case of the petitioners from the Respondents. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ/order/direction directing the Respondents to quash the impugned notification being arbitrary and ultravires to Article 14 of the Constitution. 3 10.3 The Court may direct the Respondents to relax the mandatory requirement of enrollement as Advocate with respect to the petitioners. 10.4 The, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set-aside the amendment so far providing enrollment as eligibility criteria in clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of rule 7 in Lower Judicial Service Rule 2006 vide notification dated 05.07.2024 as being arbitrary, ultravires and in violation of Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment rendered in case of All India Judges. 10.5 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. The prayer made in the present petition appears to be defective one as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the rules has not been challenged and only the amendment is challenged in the petition. It has been further pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the pleadings are also missing and in 4 absence of the pleadings, the respondents do not have an opportunity to rebut the same. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the High Court of Chhattisgarh has relied upon paragraph-9 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others v. Manjurani Routray and others passed in Civil Appeal No.2299 of 2010 decided on 01.09.2023, to submit that present petition deserves to be dismissed as in absence of the pleadings, the respondents do not have an opportunity to rebut the same. 5. Paragraph-9 of the judgment passed in Manjurani Routray (supra) is relevant for the purpose, which is reproduced below for easy reference :- “9. While hearing learned counsels appearing for the parties, we asked Shri B.H. Marlapalle, learned senior counsel along with Shri Shibashish Mishra appearing on behalf of the respondents and intervenors, as to how, in absence of any pleading setting out grounds challenging the vires of Rule 4(b) and in the absence of seeking any relief to that effect, the High Court was justified in exercising jurisdiction to declare Rule 4(b) as ultra vires? In response, learned senior 5 counsel has fairly stated that it is a defect in the pleadings as well as in the relief sought before the CAT and in the writ petition. But still, they made an unsuccessful attempt to satisfy this Court that the said rule appears to be discriminatory and therefore the High Court has rightly exercised the jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. It is a trite law that for striking down the provisions of law or for declaring any rules as ultra vires, specific pleading to challenge the rules and asking of such relief ought to be made, that is conspicuously missing in the present case. In the absence of such a pleading, the Union of India did not have an opportunity to rebut the same. The other side had no opportunity to bring on record the object, if any, behind the Rules that were brought into force. We are also of the considered view that, in the writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari challenging the order of the CAT, the High Court ought not to have declared Rule 4(b) as ultra vires in the above fact situation. Therefore, the 6 High Court was not justified to declare Rule 4(b) as ultra vires.” 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the dictum rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Manjurani Routray (supra), instant writ petition is dismissed as the prayer appears to be defective one as well as there is no averment made in the writ petition and in absence of the pleadings, the respondents do not have an opportunity to rebut the same. 7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition with proper prayer and pleadings. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu