1 WPS No. 1424 of 2025 2025:CGHC:61217-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1424 of 2025 1 - Md. Zulfequar Ullah Siddiqui S/o Hafiz Ullah Siddiqui Aged About 57 Years Working As Principal And Posted At D.I.E.T. Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Devendra Nath Mishra S/o Y.N. Mishra Aged About 61 Years Working As Incharge District Education Officer, Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh (Original Post Principal) Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Pandit Bhardwaj S/o V.N. Pandey Aged About 51 Years Working As Incharge Block Education Officer Ramanujganj, (Original Post Lecturer) Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Jai Govind Tiwari S/o R.N. Tiwari Aged About 58 Years Working As Incharge Block Education Officer, Sankargarh, District Balrampur (Original Post Lecturer) 5 - Yogesh Mishra S/o Late J. N. Mishra Aged About 53 Years Original Post Lecturer And Posted At Govt. High School Beljorea, Block Sitapur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.12.17 18:15:17 +0530 2 WPS No. 1424 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 – Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Adv. General For Intervenor : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 16.12.2025 1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, would submit that in the present matter, the petitioner No.1 wants to withdraw the petition on his behalf. In view of the above, the petition preferred on behalf of petitioner No.1 Md. Zulfequar Ullah Siddiqui is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. Now we proceed to hear the matter on behalf of the rest of the petitioners No. 2 to 5. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking for the following reliefs :- 3 WPS No. 1424 of 2025 “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare Schedule-II Sr. No. 17 of Chhattisgarh School Education Service (Education and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rule 2019 (Annexure P/5 page 68) regarding 185 post of BEO under common cadre of E and T is arbitrary and discriminatory and may be held ultravirus and directed to be modified by separately sanctioning the post of Education/Tribal cadre as per terms agreed in merger policy (Annexure P/2 Clause 9) so that post of Tribal department may not filled by Employee of education department in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in the interest of justice.” 3. (i) Learned counsel appearing for the the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are working as Principal and Lecturer in Tribal cadre. Earlier the Tribal Department and Education Department were having separate department and separate control however, in the year 2019, both the departments were merged under the Education Department. Learned counsel would submit that the service conditions of Tribal Department is governed by Chhattisgarh Tribal and Schedule Caste Development Department Educational Cadre (Gazetted) Service Rules, 2011 and in Schedule-1, total 85 posts of Block Education Officer (BEO) have been sanctioned. He also submits that as per the set up of Education Department dated 28/01/2008, there are 61 posts of BEO sanctioned for Education Department. Thus total 146 posts of BEO are there (85 posts for Tribal Department and 61 posts for Education Department). 4 WPS No. 1424 of 2025 (ii) Learned counsel would further submit that as per merger notification dated 05/03/2019, both departments will be controlled by Education Department but governed by the earlier rules and their service conditions and area of service will not be disturbed and will be as provided earlier. Despite the said fact and control to the merger policy in the Chhattisgarh School Education Service (Education and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 (for short, “the Rules, 2019”), the posts of BEO have been shown only for education E-cadre and there is no separate post for T-cadre. Out of said 185 posts, 25% posts will be filled by Additional Block Education Officer (ABEO) which is sanctioned only in the Education Department not in the Tribal Department and rest 138 posts will be filled up transfer/ deputation of Principal E and T-cadre on account of the said reasons, the promotional avenues of the Tribal Department will be adversely affected and will be reduced. By raising all the grievances, the petitioners have submitted detailed representation but the same does not yielded any result. Thus this petition. 4. (a) Learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the petitioners are trying to make out a case that by way of new rules, 25% quota has been provided to the ABEO for promotion which has in-fact reduced their chances of promotion; however, the same is not the correct position. Learned counsel would submit that if any rule which affects the right of a person to be considered for promotion which 5 WPS No. 1424 of 2025 is a condition of service, may challenge the same, but, he cannot challenge the statutory rules on the ground that mere chance of promotion is being adversely affected because mere the chance of promotion are not conditions of service and did not tantamount to change the condition of service. It is further argued that earlier the Schools were run and managed by the Department of Tribal Welfare, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development and the Department of Urban Administration and Development. All the Departments had their own rules with respect to recruitment and service conditions of the concerned teachers and other staff. Pursuant to the Policy decision, the educational institutions coming under the Department of Tribal Welfare, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development and the Department of Urban Administration and Development were transferred to the Department of School Education from 10/03/2015. (b) Learned counsel would further submit that even as per the entire pleadings and submissions of the petitioners, it is nowhere reflects that any vested right under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India has been violated by the new set of Rules. It is well settled that the power to frame rules to regulate the conditions of service under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution carries it with the power to amend or alter the said rules. Any rules which affects the right of person to be considered for promotion is a condition of service, although mere chance of promotion may not. 6 WPS No. 1424 of 2025 (c) It is further contended that the Rules, 2019 have been framed by the Government as a matter of policy and before declaring a statute or rule to be unconstitutional, it is necessary to hold that it violates a provision of Constitution and if two views are possible, the one making the rule constitutional is always to be accepted. The impugned rules have been framed with an object sought to be achieved where by the Rules of 2019, the entire Educational cadre in the State has been unified and brought under the umbrella of consolidated Rules of 2019. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is devoid of merit. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any statutory violation, mala fides, or patent arbitrariness warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. In absence of clear illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety, this Court declines to interfere in the policy decision of the State. 7. It is well settled proposition of law that the power of judicial review is not intended either to review governance under the rule of law nor do the court step into the areas exclusively reserved by the constitution to the other organs of the state and the court shall not ordinarily interfere with the policy decision of the state. 7 WPS No. 1424 of 2025 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of U.P. and others Vs. Rakesh Kumar Keshari and Anr. Reported in (2011) 5 SCC held thus at para 29:- 29.The court in Johri Mal case also held that the decisions and actions which do not have adjudicative disposition would not strictly fall for consideration before a judicial review court. According to this Court the limited scope of judicial review is: (i) Courts, while exercising the power of judicial review, do not sit in an appeal over the decisions of administrative bodies; (ii) A petition for a judicial review would lie only on certain well-defined grounds; (iii) An order passed by an administrative authority exercising discretion vested in it, cannot be interfered in judicial review unless it is shown that exercise of discretion itself was perverse or illegal; (iv) A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the power of judicial review; (v) The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on a court is limited to seeing that the Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and that its decisions do not occasion miscarriage of justice; and 8 WPS No. 1424 of 2025 (vi) The Court shall not ordinarily interfere with a policy decision of the State. 9. It is not in dispute that the Rules, 2019 have been framed by the State Government in exercise of its powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The material placed on record clearly indicates that the Rules, 2019 are a result of a conscious policy decision aimed at unifying and rationalising the entire educational cadre in the State by bringing various departments under a consolidated administrative framework. Such a policy decision, unless shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of any constitutional or statutory provision, is not amenable to judicial interference. 10. It is noteworthy to mention here that the principal grievance of the petitioners revolves around the alleged reduction of promotional avenues on account of 25% of the posts of Block Education Officer being earmarked to be filled from the cadre of Additional Block Education Officer. 11. It is well settled that a mere chance of promotion does not constitute a condition of service, and any rule affecting only the chances of promotion, without taking away an accrued or vested right, does not warrant interference by this Court. 12. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that any vested right guaranteed under Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India has been infringed by the impugned Rules. The Rules, 2019 neither 9 WPS No. 1424 of 2025 exclude the petitioners from consideration altogether nor create any hostile discrimination against the Tribal Cadre. 13. It is also evident that the power to frame rules governing service conditions includes the power to amend, alter or supersede existing rules, provided such exercise is within constitutional limits. In the present case, the petitioners have not been able to establish that the Rules, 2019 are manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable or suffer from any illegality or infirmity. On the contrary, the Rules appear to have been framed with the object of achieving administrative efficiency and uniformity in the education sector across the State and with an object to create promotional avenues for ABEO. 14. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the impugned 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. 15. It is a well settled law that if the rules are made for general good, causes hardship to an individual, the same could not be a ground for striking down the Rules. The Rules framed are valid and do not suffer from any vice of unreasonableness. (See: R.N. Goyal v Ashwani Kumar Gupta and Others1). 1 (2004) 11 SCC 753 10 WPS No. 1424 of 2025 16. Applying the well settled principles of law and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, we are of considered opinion that the challenge laid to the Rules, 2019 is devoid of merit. The Rules being a policy decision of the State Government do not call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction and the same are just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. 17. Ex-consequenti, the writ petition, sans substratum, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 18. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S. Bhilwar