1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12 of 2023 1 - Kripal Ram S/o Shri Chandan Sai Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Konpara, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 2 - Shubhnath Lal Yadav S/o Shri Shatrughan Lal Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Khutsera, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 3 - Shubhas Kumar Sai S/o Shri Prakash Sai Aged About 37 Years R/o Dumariya, Tahsil Farasabahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 4 - Dilbandhu Ram Kalo S/o Shankar Kalo Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Korgamal, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 5 - Mangal Ram Chauhan S/o Khumbhkaran Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kharibahar, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 6 - Indrajit Singh S/o Mahesh Ram Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Ankira, Tahsil Farsabahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 7 - Dilip Tirkey S/o Martin Tirkey Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Sakaridih, Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture Development And Farmers Welfare And Biotechnology Matralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Under Secretary Department Of Agriculture Development And Farmers Welfare And Biotechnology Mantralaya, Mahanai Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Jashpur District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For State :- Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 04.12.2025 1. The instant petition is being preferred before this Hon'ble Court being aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2022 which was forwarded by the Under Secretary, Agriculture Development and Farmers Welfare & Biotechnology Department Raipur to the Chief Executive Officer, Chhattisgarh State Water Area Management Agency, Raipur thereby mentioning inter-alia that, 45 WDC- PMKSY 2.0 projects was approved for the State of Chhattisgarh and recruitment for total 387 posts of Watershed Secretary was permitted. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to quash/set-aside the condition of clause-1 of the 3 selection process for the post of Watershed Secretary at 45 WDC-PMKSY 2.0 project vide order dated 28.09.2022 issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Agriculture Raipur. (ANNEXURE P/1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to consider the candidature of the petitioners and give preference on the basis of experience. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/ reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioners.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed on a contractual basis as Microwatershed Secretaries under various Integrated Watershed Management Programme (IWMP) projects between 2012 and 2018 in District Jashpur and have been continuously working for several years in these watershed projects. On 28.09.2022, the State Government approved 387 posts of Watershed Secretary for 45 projects under WDC-PMKSY 2.0 and issued norms for the selection process, wherein Clause-1 prescribes minimum educational qualification of Class 12th but additionally provides preference to candidates who are residents of the same or nearby Gram Panchayat where the project is located. Since the petitioners do not reside in those Gram 4 Panchayats, they are deprived of equal opportunity in the fresh selection process despite having long experience in the same projects, and the said residential-preference condition effectively excludes them from fair consideration. The petitioners contend that such a condition is arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and contrary to the settled principle that contractual/ad-hoc employees cannot be replaced by other contractual employees, relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Gupta v. President Jan Bhagidari Samiti in CA No.30843088/2022 and this Hon’ble Court’s decision in Manju Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh in WPS No.4406/2016. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been serving as Microwatershed Secretaries under various IWMP projects since 2012–2018 and possess long, proven experience, yet by the impugned order dated 28.09.2022, the respondents have introduced an arbitrary and unconstitutional condition in the fresh selection process giving preference to candidates residing in the same or nearby Gram Panchayat of the project area, thereby depriving the petitioners of equal opportunity despite fulfilling all eligibility criteria and having meritorious service. It is argued that such a residential-preference clause is irrational, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 16, and directly interferes with the livelihood of the petitioners, who are being excluded solely on the basis of residence. Counsel 5 contends that the respondents cannot replace existing contractual employees with new contractual employees, relying on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Gupta v. President Jan Bhagidari Samiti in CA No.30843088/2022 and this Hon’ble Court’s decision in Manju Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh in WPS No.4406/2016, which mandate that ad- hoc/contractual employees can be replaced only by regularly appointed candidates through lawful procedure. It is thus submitted that the impugned norms deserve to be set aside and the petitioners are entitled to fair, non-discriminatory consideration for continuation and appointment under the new projects. Hence, the petition deserved to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and submits that the present petition is wholly misconceived, as the petitioners were engaged only on purely temporary contractual posts of Micro Watershed Secretary, with their last appointment in 2020 explicitly limited up to 31.08.2020, carrying a nominal honorarium of Rs. 2,500/- per month and containing clear terms that no right of continuation or permanency accrues in their favour. It is argued that the impugned order dated 28.09.2022 is a policy decision of the State prescribing eligibility conditions for fresh contractual appointments under WDC-PMKSY 2.0, and the requirement that candidates be residents of the concerned Village/Gram Panchayat is a reasonable classification intended to ensure effective implementation of watershed schemes through 6 locally knowledgeable and accountable persons. Counsel contends that the petitioners, having not been in service since 2020, cannot claim that they are being replaced by other contractual employees, nor can they challenge a well-considered policy formulated by technical experts, particularly when courts have consistently held that policy matters are not to be interfered with unless arbitrary, unconstitutional, or irrational, relying on Federation of Railway Officers Association v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 289 and Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors (2007) 4 SCC 737. It is therefore submitted that the petitioners have failed to establish any violation of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India, and the reliefs sought are untenable, rendering the writ petition liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioners have challenged the minimum qualifying conditions prescribed for engagement to the contractual post of Watershed Secretary (Class I), primarily questioning (i) the requirement that the candidate should be a resident of the concerned Panchayat/village, and (ii) the requirement of having experience in handling computers. Though, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these conditions are arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as they 7 allegedly create an artificial and unconstitutional classification, whereas the respondents justify the conditions by submitting that the posts in question are village-level posts meant for implementation of developmental schemes at the grass-roots level, and therefore preference for local residents coupled with basic computer-handling ability is essential for effective execution of the work. 8. It is well settled that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India do not prohibit reasonable classification. A classification will be constitutionally valid if (i) there exists an intelligible differentia distinguishing those included from those excluded, and (ii) such differentia has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 9. Upon a bare perusal of the record and the nature of duties assigned to a Watershed Secretary, this Court finds that the residency condition imposed by the respondents is founded upon a clear and rational basis. The post involves interaction with villagers, Panchayat representatives, and local institutions. Familiarity with local customs, language, geography and community dynamics is crucial. Preference to residents of the same village thus bears a direct nexus with administrative efficacy. Such preference for local candidates cannot be construed as arbitrary or mala fide. It merely ensures better accountability, faster grievance-redressal, and greater community acceptance, 8 objectives central to the effective implementation of village-level watershed programmes. 10. Similarly, the requirement of experience in handling computers also stands justified. Modern implementation of watershed and developmental schemes mandatorily involves digital data entry, maintenance of online records, submission of reports, and operating standard software modules. A minimum level of computer literacy is therefore a bona fide occupational qualification directly connected to the duties of the post. 11. In the present case, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate that either of the impugned conditions is wholly irrelevant to the object of the scheme, or that they are designed to favour a particular class arbitrarily. No material has been brought on record to show malice, extraneous considerations, or that the classification results in manifest injustice. This Court also finds no procedural irregularity in the manner in which the respondents formulated or applied the said qualifications. The policy decisions involving local preference and functional requirements fall within the domain of administrative discretion and cannot be interfered with unless patently arbitrary, which is not the case here. 12. Thus, the conditions challenged by the petitioners constitute reasonable and permissible classifications that further the object of the programme and do not offend Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. 9 13. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha