1 WA No.709 of 2025 2025:CGHC:49359-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 709 of 2025 Photo Bai W/o Shukla Prasad Uraon, Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 47, Vijaypur Boierdadar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr T.K. Jha, Advocate with Mr. Rohan Kumhare, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Adv. General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 26.09.2025 1. The appellant/writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 15/07/2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 5305/2017, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.09.26 16:17:23 +0530 2 WA No.709 of 2025 before the learned writ Court. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent No.02 issued advertisement (Annexure-P/01) on 01.10.2016 for recruitment to the post of Driver with a specific condition mentioned in sub-clause (31) of Clause 3 of the advertisement that Rules 5 & 6 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Condition of Service) Rules 1961 (for short the “Rules of 1961”) will be applicable to the recruitment process. Clause 3(5) of the said advertisement also provides that the candidate has to fulfill all the requisite eligibility criteria as on the date of advertisement (i.e. 01.10.2016). Thereafter, an amended advertisement was also issued on 17.10.2016. On completion of recruitment process, notice calling the candidates were issued on 01.07.2017 for the purpose of counselling and verification of documents on 12.07.2017, in which, the present petitioner also participated under Scheduled Tribe category. Meanwhile, on 13.07.2017, Rule 6(6) of the Rules of 1961 was omitted, removing the disqualification relating to having more than 02 children on or after 26th day of January, 2001. Thereafter, on 10.08.2017, the appointment order was issued, in which, the name of the petitioner was not appeared on account of her non-selection on the post of Driver. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner submitted representation before the concerned respondent, which was also rejected on 08.09.2017 of the reply of the State, leading to filing of this writ petition. 3 WA No.709 of 2025 3. The appellant/writ petitioner contended in the writ petition that the recruiting authority is absolutely unjustified in not selecting/ appointing the petitioner on the post of Driver pursuant to advertisement issued on 01.10.2016 for the reason that once she has been declared qualified for the said post and called for counselling and document verification, her candidature could not have been rejected subsequently relying upon Rule6(6) of the Rules of 1961. The petitioner should have been appointed on the said post, as the operation of Rule 6(6) of the Rules of 1961 would be retrospective in nature. He would rely upon the decision Union of India v. Uzair Imran (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1308) and others to buttress his submission. 4. Contention of the respondent/State was that Rule 6 (6) of the Rules of 1961 clearly provides that no candidate shall be eligible for appointment to a service or post who has more than two living children on of whom is born on or after the 26th day of January, 2001 and, admittedly, petitioner is having more than two children and on of whom is born after 26.01.2001 on the date of advertisement i.e. 01.10.2016. As such, the petitioner was not eligible for making application for appointment on the post of Driver. He vehemently submits that though said disqualification vis-a-vis Rule 6(6) has been omitted vide notification dated 13.07.2017, but it will operate prospectively, as the amendment has not been given the retrospective effect. Even otherwise, the 4 WA No.709 of 2025 subordinate legislation/rule making authority has no power to make rule with retrospective effect unless conferred expressly by the statute. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner would submit that the learned Single Judge has not considered the legal aspect. He submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that, the sub-rule (6) of C.G. Civil Service (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961 has been omitted vide notification dated 13.07.2017. it is pertinent to mention that before issuance of appointment order dated 10.08.2017, the relevant provision has been omitted, thereafter, petitioner was entitled for appointment and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would support the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge which is just and proper and does not require any interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. It is noteworthy to mention here that every statute shall be construed as prima facie prospective unless expressly or by necessary implication it is made to have a retrospective operation. 9. It is well settled proposition of law that a power conferred to make 5 WA No.709 of 2025 a subordinate legislation must be exercised in conformity with the parent Act. A subordinate legislation can be given a retrospective effect and operation if any power in this behalf contained in the main Act. In the present case, it has not been demonstrated that Rule 6 (6) of Rules of 1961 has been omitted with retrospective effect or Rule 6(6) of the Rules of 1961 has been given retrospective effect. 10. While dismissing the petition, learned Single Judge observed that there is a legislative injunction baring the candidates to be appointed to a service or post who are having more than two living children on of whom is born on or after the 26th day of January, 2001. Therefore, any candidate, applying for a service or post, is having more than two living children on of whom is born on or after the 26th day of January, 2001, would not be eligible for appointment and selection in view of Rule 6(6) of the Rules of 1961. 11. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is manifest that the learned Single Judge after appreciating the relevant provisions and the contentions of the parties, rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 12.As a result, the writ appeal is dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep