1 WPS No. 80 of 2024 2025:CGHC:30489-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 80 of 2024 1 - Smt. Smriti Norge W/o Dilip Kumar Khare Aged About 39 Years Investigator In The Department Of Econimic And Statistics Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Ajay Lahri S/o Radheshyam Lahri Aged About 40 Years Investigator In The Department Of Economic And Statistics Directorate, Posted At District Office, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Arti Vatti W/o S.R. Vatti Aged About 36 Years Investigator In The Department Of Ecominic And Statistics Directorate, Posted At District Office, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Jyoti Sahu W/o S.K. Sahu Aged About 31 Years Investigator In The Department Of Economic And Statistics Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Vijay Pratap Singh Thakur S/o R. S. Thakur Aged About 41 Years Investigator In The Department Of Economic And Statistics Directorate, Posted At District Office, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Smt. Shilpa Soni W/o Mukund Soni Aged About 38 Years Investigator In The Department Of Economic And Statistics Directorate, Posted At District Office, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 7 - Sunayana Dewangan W/o Chetan Dilliwar Aged About 37 Years Investigator In The Department Of Economic And Statistics Directorate, Posted At District Office, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.07.05 12:44:47 +0530 2 WPS No. 80 of 2024 8 - Kirti Netam S/o Harbansh Netam Aged About 38 Years Investigator In The Department Of Economic And Statistics Directorate, Posted At District Office, North Bastar Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 9 - Harbansh Koshle S/o Jayant Das Koshle Aged About 41 Years Investigator In The Department Of Economic And Statistics Directorate, Posted At District Office, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 10 - Ashwani Kumar Bhuarya S/o Pal Singh Bhuarya Aged About 41 Years Investigator In The Department Of Economic And Statistics Directorate, Posted At District Office, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Economic And Statistics, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Department Of Economice And Statistics Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. T.K. Jha and Mr. T.K. Jha and Mr. Amir Khan, Advocate For State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. AG Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per, Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 04/07/2025 Heard. 1. The petitioners in the present Writ Petition has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records relating to this case. 3 WPS No. 80 of 2024 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and declare the Rule 13 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Economics and Statistics Class-III (Executive) Service Recruitment Rules, 1990 relating to promotion of ministerial staff to the post of ASO by limited competitive examination as unconstitutional and liable to be set-aside, the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set-aside the letter dated 30/05/2022 (Annexure-P/2). 10.4 That, any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition. “ 2. (a) Case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were directly appointed on the post of Invesigator in the grade pay of Rs. 2800/- per month through the examination conducted by the Vyapam in the year 2013-14. Their next post for promotion is Assistant Statics officers. According to them, for promotion to the post of Assistant Statistics Officers, 40% is to be filled by director recruitment, 50% is to be filled from promotion from executive officers and 10% is to be filled from ministerial staff through limited competitive exam. (b) According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the impugned Rules i.e. Madhya Pradesh Economics and Statistics Class- III (Executive) Service Recruitment Rules, 1989 (sic 1990) which was published in the official Gazette 26/01/1990 (For short ‘the Rules of 1989’), provides that Assistant Grade-III (grade pay Rs. 1900/- and A.G.- II grade pay Rs. 2400/-) have ben permitted to appear for the post of Assistant Statistics Officer, Investigator and Data Entry Operator (grade pay Rs. 4300/-, Rs. 2800/- & Rs. 2400/-, respectively) through limited competitive exam with certain educational 4 WPS No. 80 of 2024 qualification and experience in the Rule, 13 of the Rules, 1989. (c) According to the learned counsel, it is a basic principle of service jurisprudence that promotion by limited competitive exam can be given only for the next higher post and not for two or three above rank post. The petitioners herein were appointed on the grade pay of Rs. 2800/- and their next higher post is Assistant Statistics Officer Grade Pay Rs. 4300/-, Whereas, AG-III & AG-II (Grade Pay Rs. 1900 & Rs. 2400/-) have also been allowed to get promotion for post of Assistant Statistics Officer (Grade pay of Rs. 4300/-) through limited competitive exam which is three and above to their present post/scale. To buttress his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the matter of Pavnesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3641/2023, decided on 28/11/2023) by the Apex Court. Thus, the impugned Rules 1989 be declared as Unconstitutional and the same be set-aside. 3. (i) Learned counsel appearing for the State ex-adverso, would submit that the petitioners are working as Investigators in the department of Economic and Statistics Directorate. According to Schedule IV of the Chhattisgarh Economics and Statistics Class III (Executive) Service Recruitment Rules, 1989 the next promotional post for the post of Investigator/ Field Investigator/ Block Level Investigator is that of Assistant Statistical Officer. (ii) Learned counsel would submit that according to the Rules of 1989, 40% posts of Assistant Statistical Officer is to be filled by direct 5 WPS No. 80 of 2024 recruitment, while 50% of the posts of Assistant Statistical Officer is to be filled by promotion of the members of the services and 10% of the post is to be filled by members of Ministerial service through limited competitive exam. Rule 13 of the Rules, 1989 provides for direct recruitment by selection through limited competitive examination of the ministerial employees on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer/ Investigator/Field Investigator/ Block Level Investigator/ Computer. The petitioners are basically aggrieved by Rule 13 of the Rules of 1989 which provides for direct recruitment by selection through limited competitive examination. The petitioners seem to be aggrieved by Rule 13 of the Rules of 1989 on the ground that the juniors to the petitioners or the persons holding lower post than the petitioners, get an opportunity to be appointed on a higher post through limited competitive examination. (iii) According to the learned counsel the Chhattisgarh Economics and Statistics Class-III (Executive) Service Recruitment Rules, 1989 were framed in the year 1989 and notified in January, 1990. The petitioners while entering the services in the Department of Economics and Statistics were well aware of the service conditions and their avenues of the promotion. The Rules have been enforced for more than 30 years and has been long standing. Since the petitioners were well aware of the Rules and avenues of promotions and had entered the services with all open eyes, they cannot turn back and challenge the provisions claiming it to be arbitrary or unconstitutional. He would 6 WPS No. 80 of 2024 submit that reduction in changes of promotion, if any, on account of change or amendment in the Rules would not effect the fundamental rights of the petitioners as the Govt. servant has only a right to be considered for promotions in accordance with the relevant Rules and therefore, the challenge made by the petitioners in the present petition is not tenable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 5. Whether an employee has a right to be promoted or not depends on the statutory rules governing his service or the terms of the contract of service or executive instructions as the case may be. If the rules or the contract of service etc. provide or indicate that promotion is to be made on an assessment of the merits of the candidate, then the candidate has only a right to be considered for promotion as distinguished from the right to be promoted. 6. It is well settled that while promotion is a normal incidence of service and not a fundamental right, but an employee has a right to be considered for promotion. In Union of India and others v. Krishna Kumar and others1, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that there is no vested right to promotion, but a right be considered for promotion in accordance with the Rules which prevail on the date on which consideration for promotion takes place, and observed in paragraphs 10, 11 & 12 as under: - 1 (2019) 4 SCC 319 7 WPS No. 80 of 2024 “10. In considering the rival submissions, it must, at the outset, be noted that it is well settled that there is no vested right to promotion, but a right be considered for promotion in accordance with the Rules which prevail on the date on which consideration for promotion takes place. This Court has held that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled in on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose. The decision of this Court in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao2 has been construed in subsequent decisions as a case where the applicable Rules required the process of promotion or selection to be completed within a stipulated time-frame. Hence, it has been held in H.S. Grewal v. Union of India3 that the creation of an intermediate post would not amount to an interference with the vested right to promotion. A two-Judge Bench of this Court held thus: (H.S. Grewal case, SCC p. 769, para 13) “13. … Such an introduction of an intermediate post does not, in our opinion, amount to interfering with any vested rights cannot be interfered with, is to be accepted as correct. What all has happened here is that an intermediate post has been created prospectively for future promotions from Group B Class II to Group A Class I. If, before these Rules of 1981 came into force, these officers were eligible to be directly promoted as Commandants under the 1974 Rules but before they got any such promotions, the 1981 Rules came in obliging them to 2 (1983) 3 SCC 284 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 382 3 (1997) 11 SCC 758 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 420 8 WPS No. 80 of 2024 go through an intermediate post, this does not amount to interfering with any vested rights.” 11. In Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P.4, this Court observed thus: (SCC p. 735, paras 26-27) “26. It is by now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, which implies the “Rules in force” on the date the consideration took place. There is no rule of universal or absolute application that vacancies are to be filled invariably by the law existing on the date when the vacancy arises. The requirement of filling up old vacancies under the old rules is interlinked with the candidate having acquired a right to be considered for promotion. The right to be considered for promotion accrues on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates. Unless, of course, the applicable rule, as in Y.V. Rangaiah case13 lays down any particular time-frame, within which the selection process is to be completed. In the present case, consideration for promotion took place after the amendment came into operation. Thus, it cannot be accepted that any accrued or vested right of the appellants has been taken away by the amendment. 27. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, namely, B.L. Gupta v. MCD5, P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of A.P.6 and N.T. 4 (2011) 6 SCC 725 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 175] 5 (1998) 9 SCC 223 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 532 6 1988 Supp SCC 740 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 123 9 WPS No. 80 of 2024 Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission7 are reiterations of a principle laid down in Y.V. Rangaiah case13.” 12. Recently, in State of Tripura v. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty8, another two-Judge Bench of this Court held thus: (SCC pp. 650-51, para 9) “9. The law is thus clear that a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, namely, “rules in force on the date” the consideration takes place and that there is no rule of absolute application that vacancies must invariably be filled by the law existing on the date when they arose. As against the case of total exclusion and absolute deprivation of a chance to be considered as in Deepak Agarwal15, in the instant case certain additional posts have been included in the feeder cadre, thereby expanding the zone of consideration. It is not as if the writ petitioners or similarly situated candidates were totally excluded. At best, they now had to compete with some more candidates. In any case, since there was no accrued right nor was there any mandate that vacancies must be filled invariably by the law existing on the date when the vacancy arose, the State was well within its rights to stipulate that the vacancies be filled in accordance with the Rules as amended. Secondly, the process to amend the Rules had also begun well before the Notification dated 24-11-2011.”” 7. As such, the petitioners have only a right to be considered fairly, but 7 (1990) 3 SCC 157 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 446 8 (2017) 3 SCC 646 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 718 10 WPS No. 80 of 2024 no right of promotion. However, in the matter of State of Maharashtra and another v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and others9, it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that mere chances of promotion are not conditions of service, and the fact that there was reduction in the chances of promotion did not tantamount to a change in the conditions of service. It has been further held that a right to be considered for promotion is a term of service, but mere chances of promotion are not. Furthermore, in the matter of Air Commodore Naveen Jain v. Union of India and others10, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have affirmed the view relying upon various judicial pronouncements that power of the State to fix quota for promotion cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory so as to attract violation of either Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution, and it was observed in paragraphs 13 & 15 as under: - “13. In State of Mysore v. G.B. Purohit11, this Court held that a right to be considered for promotion, is a condition of service but mere chances of promotion are not. The rule which merely affects the chances of promotion cannot be regarded as varying a condition of service. The said judgment was quoted with approval in later judgment reported as Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra12, wherein this Court held as under: (SCC p. 329, para 15) 9 (1981) 4 SCC 130 10 (2019) 10 SCC 34 11 1967 SLR 753 (SC) 12 (1974) 1 SCC 317 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 137 11 WPS No. 80 of 2024 “15. … All that happened as a result of making promotions to the posts of Deputy Collectors division wise and limiting such promotions to 50 per cent of the total number of vacancies in the posts of Deputy Collector was to reduce the chances of promotion available to the petitioners. It is now well settled by the decision of this Court in State of Mysore v. G.B. Purohit22 that though a right to be considered for promotion is a condition of service, mere chances of promotion are not. A rule which merely affects chances of promotion cannot be regarded as varying a condition of service. In Purohit case the district wise seniority of sanitary inspectors was changed to Statewise seniority, and as a result of this change the respondents went down in seniority and became very junior. This, it was urged, affected their chances of promotion which were protected under the proviso to Section 115, sub-section (7). This contention was negatived and Wanchoo, J. (as he then was), speaking on behalf of this Court observed: (SLR para 10) ‘10. … It is said on behalf of the respondents that as their chances of promotion have been affected their conditions of service have been changed to their disadvantage. We see no force in this argument because chances of promotion are not conditions of service.’ ” 15. In A. Satyanarayana v. S. Purushotham13, this Court held that the power of the State to fix quota for promotion cannot be said to be violative of the constitutional scheme of equality as contemplated under 13 (2008) 5 SCC 416 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 279 12 WPS No. 80 of 2024 Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 426, paras 23 & 25-26) “23. We, however, are of the opinion that the validity or otherwise of a quota rule cannot be determined on surmises and conjectures. Whereas the power of the State to fix the quota keeping in view the fact situation obtaining in a given case must be conceded, the same, however, cannot be violative of the constitutional scheme of equality as contemplated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a policy decision and, in particular, legislative policy should not ordinarily be interfered with and the superior courts, while exercising their power of judicial review, shall not consider as to whether such policy decision has been taken mala fide or not. But where a policy decision as reflected in a statutory rule pertains to the field of subordinate legislation, indisputably, the same would be amenable to judicial review, inter alia, on the ground of being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (See Vasu Dev Singh v. Union of India14 and State of Kerala v. Unni15.) * * * 25. While saying so, we are not unmindful of the legal principle that nobody has a right to be promoted; his right being confined to right to be considered therefor. 26. Similarly, the power of the State to take a policy 14 (2006) 12 SCC 753 15 (2007) 2 SCC 365 13 WPS No. 80 of 2024 decision as a result whereof an employee's chance of promotion is diminished cannot be a subject-matter of judicial review as no legal right is infringed thereby.” 8. As such, reduction in chances of promotion, if any, on account of change or amendment in the rules would not affect his fundamental right, as the Government servant has only a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the relevant rules and therefore challenge to this effect is hereby rejected. 9. In the matter of Dwarka Prasad and others v. Union of India and others16, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that fixation of quotas or different avenues and ladders for promotion in favour of various categories of posts in feeder cadres based upon the structure and pattern of the Department is a prerogative of the employer, mainly pertaining to the policy-making field, and observed in paragraph 16 as under: - “16. Fixation of quotas or different avenues and ladders for promotion in favour of various categories of posts in feeder cadres based upon the structure and pattern of the Department is a prerogative of the employer, mainly pertaining to the policy-making field. The relevant considerations in fixing a particular quota for a particular post are various such as the cadre strength in the feeder quota, suitability more or less of the holders in the feeder post, their nature of duties, experience and the channels of promotion available to the holders of posts in the feeder cadres. Most important of them all is the requirement of 16 (2003) 6 SCC 535 14 WPS No. 80 of 2024 the promoting authority for manning the post on promotion with suitable candidates. Thus, fixation of quota for various categories of posts in the feeder cadres requires consideration of various relevant factors, a few amongst them have been mentioned for illustration. Mere cadre strength of a particular post in the feeder cadre cannot be a sole criterion or basis to claim parity in the chances of promotion by various holders of posts in feeder categories.” 10. Similarly, in Dilip Kumar Garg (supra), it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the administrative authorities are in the best position to decide the prescription of requisite qualifications for promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer and the decision of the Government to treat all Junior Engineers, whether degree-holders or diploma-holders, as equals for the purpose of promotion is a policy decision, which the Court should not ordinarily interfere, and observed as under in paragraphs 15 & 16: - “15. In our opinion Article 14 should not be stretched too far, otherwise it will make the functioning of the administration impossible. The administrative authorities are in the best position to decide the requisite qualifications for promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer, and it is not for this Court to sit over their decision like a court of appeal. The administrative authorities have experience in administration, and the Court must respect this, and should not interfere readily 15 WPS No. 80 of 2024 with administrative decisions. (See Union of India v. Pushpa Rani17 and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand18.) 16. The decision to treat all Junior Engineers, whether degree-holders or diploma-holders, as equals for the purpose of promotion is a policy decision, and it is well settled that this Court should not ordinarily interfere in policy decisions unless there is clear violation of some constitutional provision or the statute. We find no such violation in this case.” 11. The statutory authority is entitled to frame the statutory rules laying down the terms and conditions of service as also the qualifications essential for holding a particular post. It is only the authority concerned which can take ultimate decision therefor. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordinarily do not direct an employer to prescribe a qualification for holding a particular post. 12. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The Court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive rewriting 17 (2008) 9 SCC 242 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 851 18 (2008) 10 SCC 1 16 WPS No. 80 of 2024 of the advertisement/notification. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. 13. It is noteworthy to mention here that prescription of educational qualification for a post is the sole prerogative of the employer and merely because a candidate is not having that qualification for the said post and he/she is finding difficult to appear in the selection process for the particular post for want of desired educational qualification, the educational qualification so prescribed in the relevant rules cannot be struck down unless it is manifestly arbitrary or discriminatory or violative to the provisions of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the impugned notice and the Rules are either violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India or violative of Article 14/16 of the Constitution of India or it suffers from manifest arbitrariness and it has not been shown to be discriminatory. 14. It is a well settled law that if the rules/notifications/amendments are made for general good, causes hardship to an individual, the same could not be a ground for striking down the Rules. The Rules/notification framed are valid and do not suffer from any vice of unreasonableness. (See: R.N. Goyal v Ashwani Kumar Gupta and Others19). 15. Applying the well settled principles of law and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, we are of considered opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned Rules 1989 as well as in the memo dated 19 (2004) 11 SCC 753 17 WPS No. 80 of 2024 30/05/2025. The same are just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. 16. Ex-consequenti, the writ petition, sans substratum, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 17. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri