1 2025:CGHC:5949-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 74 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Livestock And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Under Secretary Department Of Livestock And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 3 - The Director Department Of Veterinary Science, Ground Floor, Block-3, Indravati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 4 - The Deputy Director Veterinary Services, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Vandana Tandan W/o Shri C.S. Tandan Aged About 36 Years Working As Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, Posted At Government Old Sankra Rajnandgaon Veterninary Hospital Somni, Resident Of Ward No. 44, Ashirwad Colony, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu University Through Its Registrar, Anjora, District Durg, C.G. 3 - The Registrar Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu University, Anjora, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.02.04 11:16:39 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Add. A.G. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate For Respondent/University : Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants / State. Also heard Mr. Manish Nigam, learned counsel, appearing for respondent as well as Mr. Ali Asgar, learned counsel, appearing for respondent / University. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5230/2024 (Vandana Tandan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein was allowed by the learned Single Judge with direction to the appellants / State of get the writ petitioner admitted for the B.V.Sc. And AH Course in the next academic session 2025-26 and with further direction, treating it as an exceptional case and further treating it as not a precedent, to ensure that the writ petitioners are granted permissions to partake in the B.V.Sc. Course in the next academic session treating them to be cleared for the said course by virtue of the petitioners having successfully cleared the NEET Examination in the year 2024. 3. The appellants / State are also aggrieved by the order dated 3 03.12.2024 passed in Review Petition No. 278/2024 (Vandan Tandan vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), by which, the learned Single Judge reviewed the order dated 25.11.2024 and modified the said order to the extent that the writ petitioner has wrongly been deprived admission in B.V.Sc and AV Course in session 2024-25 and directing giving admission in academic session 2024-25. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner / respondent No. 1 herein was working under the respondents as Assistant Veterinary Field OfÏcers. The writ petitioner has completed five years of service. The writ petitioner aspiring for admission to the B.V.Sc and AH degree Course sought permission from the department to appear in the NEET, 2020 Examination. The documents reveal that the petitioner had moved an application as early as March, 2024. (from here) The NEET Examination, 2024 was conducted on 05.05.2024. Though the petitioner had applied as early as March and April, 2024 for permission to appear in the NEET Examination, the appellants herein neither accepted nor rejected the claim of the writ petitioner. In the absence of any permission from the department treating it to be a deemed permission, the writ petitioner participated in the said NEET 2024 examination. Subsequently, when the results were published, the writ petitioner were found meritorious for admission to the B.V.Sc and AH Course. The rules governing the service conditions of the writ petitioner are Chhattisgarh Veterinary (Gazetted) Recruitment Service Rules, 2011. The next promotion from the post of Assistant Veterinary 4 Field OfÏcer is to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. The post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon is to be filled up 92% by way of direct recruitment and 8% posts reserved to be filled up by way of promotion from the substantive member of service. The feeder post for promotion to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon is Assistant Veterinary Field OfÏcer as would be evident from Schedule 4 of the aforementioned Rules of 2011. Apart from the experience of five years, the rules also prescribe that 8% posts reserved would be only from among those candidates who have passed the graduation in Veterinary Science as a departmental candidate. This in other words means a person who does not obtain a degree or graduation in Veterinary Science as a departmental candidate would not be entitled to promotion even if he has a graduation degree obtained at his own expense or even if it is obtained before coming into service under the appellants. He will not be entitled to promotion from among the 8% quota. Since the time the Rules were framed, the department has been sending candidates working on the post of Assistant Veterinary Field OfÏcer each year to pursue the degree course of B.V.Sc & AH. However, the appellants have vide the order dated 12.10.2020, 03.12.2020 and 20.06.2024 refused to grant permission to the writ petitioner to pursue their B.V.Sc and AH degree Course. 5. Challenging the aforementioned orders i.e. refusal to grant permission for the said degree course, the writ petitioner / respondent No. 1 herein preferred W.P.(S) No. 5230/2024, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 5 25.11.2024 and order dated 03.12.2024 passed in Review Petition No. 278/2024 filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No. 1 in writ petition and review petition, instant appeal has been filed by appellants. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for appellants / State submits that the impugned order dated 25/11/2024 and the order dated 03/12/2024 are absolutely perverse, unjust, unreasonable and against the rules. The impugned order dated 25/11/2024 and the order dated 03/12/2024 have been passed without appreciating the materials available on record and submissions made in the return against the well settled position of law. The learned Single Bench has failed to appreciate the fact that it is a settled position of law that it is the discretion of the employer which in the instant case is the State not to allow its employee to peruse the higher education for the purpose of promotion taking into consideration certain factors which may adversely affect the works due to allowing the employee for the same, with the only rider that such discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily and must be bonafide. The writ petitioner has failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness and malice in the action of the State Authorities justifying intervention of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that mere clearing the examination by the candidate i.e. NEET examination does not create any indefeasible right in favour of the candidate to secure appointment by way of promotion whereas the promotion is being granted to the employee considering the seniority of the employee, 6 availability of vacancies in promotional post and evaluation of ACR of the employee. The learned Single Judge further failed to appreciate the submissions of the appellants that it is the prerogative of the departmental to send the employee like the writ petitioner to pursue the course as and when their services are required in the department and further for the department to consider as to how many posts are available for promotion also, for pursing the 5 years B.V.Sc. and A.H. Course, the State Government has to incur the amount / cost of about Rs. 26,54,280/- per candidate (Rs. 1,06,17,120/- for 4 departmental candidates) and further there is already 17 more Field OfÏcers who are waiting to be promoted and there is no chance for the writ petitioner to get promoted in the near future and hence, the permission for pursuing the aforesaid 5 years degree course to the writ petitioner would not only useful for the department, but would adversely cause delay / hurdles in smooth implementation of the schemes for welfare of cattle floated by the State Government as well as the farmers engaged in animal husbandry activities. The learned Single Judge lastly failed to appreciate the admission rule for B.V.Sc. and A.Н. graduate course 2020 of Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu University more particularly Rule 16 which specifically prescribes a rider that a departmental candidate will be permitted to take admission as per the merit list of the NEET subject to fulfilling the conditions of Rule 5 and 16 of the Admission Rules, 2020 as Rule 16(c) prescribes the minimum age limit for a departmental candidate as maximum 35 years whereas the writ petitioner already crossed the said age limit 7 and under these circumstances, in-spite clearing the NEET Examination, the writ petitioner would not be eligible for getting himself admitted for the aforesaid degree course. Rule 16(c) reads as under :- "16 (c) विभागीय उम्मीदारों की आयु 35 ्ቧ से अधिक न हो ( आयु की गणना ्ቚेश ्ቧ के पू की 31 विदसम्बर की ቝኌ#$धि% में की जायेगी)" 7. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for appellants / State lastly argued that all admission in B.V.Sc. and A.H. Graduate Course for the academic session 2024-25 have already been completed as the last date for admission was prescribed as 15/11/2024 which has never ever been extended by the competent authority and this fact is fortified from the communication dated 15/01/2025 of Registrar, Dau Shri Vasudev Chandrakar Kamdhenu Vishwavidyalaya, Anjora, District Durg (CG.), copy of which is filed herewith as Annexure A/3. It is submitted that since the last date of admission was prescribed for 15/11/2024 and the order in the review petition was passed on 03/12/2024. Under these circumstances, no admission could be granted to the writ petitioner in any manner. Though the writ petitioner has right to appear in the NEET examination for prosecuting 5 years B.V.Sc. and AH degree Course, but, the Admission Rules of the University prescribes that any candidate beyond the age of 35 years will not be considered. Similarly the guidelines issued by the Department dated 18/06/1999 (Annexure R/1 of the return of the State at page no. 13) also provide that no employee beyond the age of 35 years would be permitted to 8 appear in the entrance examination, which the writ petitioner appeared without any permission illegally and without authority. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants / State and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein, in which, no interference is sought for. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order and materials available on record. 10. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner / respondent No. 1 herein has held that from perusal of records it is apparent that admittedly the writ petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Veterinary Field OfÏcer, therefore, the admitted factual matrix is that the next promotional post from the post of Assistant Veterinary Field OfÏcer is to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. The rules governing the field undisputedly is the Chhattisgarh Veterinary (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2011. Under the rules, it shows that 8 per cent posts of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon are to be filled up by 8 Assistant Veterinary Field OfÏcers who have obtained the degree of the B.V.Sc. and AH Course as a departmental candidate. The aforesaid rules clearly makes it clear that unless a candidate has obtained the degree of B.V.Sc and AH Course as a departmental candidate, he/she would never be considered for promotion. Thus, obtaining the degree 9 either as a departmental candidate becomes a necessity for any employee to expect promotion and it is for this reason that the department every year sponsors candidates for the aforesaid degree course. The colleges in the State of Chhattisgarh also have a specific quota of seats under the said course. If the respondents (State and University) do not permit the writ petitioner, seats would be left unfilled and would go to waste. Another fact considered by the learned Single Judge is that the rules of 2011 have not been amended. There also does not seem to be any policy decision of the State Government of stopping facility of granting permission to the employees in the Veterinary Department for pursuing the degree course of B.V.Sc and AH. The orders dated 12.10.2020, 03.12.2020 and 20.06.2024 do not disclose any specific reason why the said decision was taken by the authorities. 11. The learned Single Judge further held that from the reply filed by the respondents / appellants herein, it is evidently clear that the respondents themselves have admitted the fact that they have in the past permitted a large number of candidates to pursue the B.V.Sc and AH Courses. Those candidates were also permitted under the same set of rules. The rules governing the field for participating in the NEET Examination which is necessary for getting admission to the B.V.Sc Course is being amended where the upper age limit is being put for participating in the NEET Examination. The moment the said rules with upper age limited for participating in the NEET Examination is introduced, the writ petitioner would lose their chance for getting admission in the 10 B.V.Sc Course for all times to come. This would have a cascading effect on the promotional front and the writ petitioner would lose their chance for a promotional post at a later stage for want of qualification. 12. Hence, the learned Single Judge relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of National Medical Commission vs. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 992 and earlier decision of Delhi High Court in the matter of Sneha Vats. Vs. University of Delhi, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11199 concluded that the writ petitioner herein also who have been wrongly deprived admission in the B.V.Sc and AH Course in the academic session of 2024-25 be admitted for the B.V.Sc and AH Course in the next academic session of 2025-26. The respondents / appellants herein were directed as an exceptional case without treating it as a precedent to ensure that the writ petitioner are granted permission to partake in the B.V.Sc Course in the next academic session treating them to be cleared for the said Course by virtue of the writ petitioner having successfully cleared the NEET Examination in the year 2024. Further respondent No. 4 & 5- University therein was also directed to take all necessary steps in accommodating the writ petitioner in the B.V.Sc and AH Course in the next academic session 2025-26, which was further reviewed in the Review Petition, by which, the learned Single Judge reviewed the order dated 25.11.2024 and modified the said order to the extent that the writ petitioner has wrongly been deprived admission in B.V.Sc and AV Course in session 2024-25 and 11 directing giving admission in academic session 2024-25. 13. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an intra Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 14. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet