Chhattisgarh High Court Strikes Down Rule Debarring Engineering Graduates From Sub-Engineer Posts
The Chhattisgarh Excessive Court docket has declared as extremely vires and unconstitutional Rule 8(II), Column (5), Schedule-III, Serial No. 1 of the Chhattisgarh Public Well being Engineering Division (Non-Gazetted) Service Guidelines, 2016, to the extent it excludes diploma holders in engineering from making use of for the submit of Sub-Engineer. The Court docket held that such exclusion was unreasonable, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Structure.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru noticed, “It is manifest that the exclusion of diploma holders who’re higher with the requisite data and technical expertise just isn’t solely unreasonable but additionally counter productive to the target of recruiting competent people for the submit. This arbitrary restriction undermines the rules of equity and equal alternative. Even, the identical can be in clear violation of the basic rights assured underneath Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Structure of India.”
The Court docket added, “It’s the trite regulation that any classification made by the State primarily based on intelligible differentia and should bear a rational nexus with the thing sought to be achieved. It’s also nicely settled that any eligibility standards should bear a cheap correlation with the useful recruitment of the posts, the character of the duties to be carried out and the aptitudes crucial to satisfy these duties successfully.”
Advocate Ajay Shrivastava appeared for the Petitioners, whereas Deputy Advocate Normal Shashank Thakur represented the Respondents.
Transient Information
The Petitioners, holding graduate levels in engineering, had utilized for the submit of Sub-Engineer (Civil/Electrical/Mechanical) within the Public Well being Engineering Division of the State of Chhattisgarh. The recruitment was ruled by the 2016 Guidelines, which mandated solely a three-year diploma in engineering because the prescribed qualification, thereby excluding engineering graduates.
The Petitioners contended that earlier recruitment notices underneath the 2012 Guidelines had allowed graduates to take part as a result of a diploma was handled because the minimal qualification. Nonetheless, within the 2016 Guidelines and present commercial, the phrase “minimal” was omitted, which resulted within the increased certified candidates being excluded, regardless of their superior technical data.
The Petitioners additional submitted that different departments of the State, together with the Public Works Division and Chhattisgarh State Energy Distribution Firm Restricted (CSPDCL), permitted each diploma and diploma holders to use for a similar submit.
In response, the State contended that the Guidelines of 2016 merely reiterated the eligibility situations of earlier guidelines and that the prescribed qualification for direct recruitment was at all times a diploma. The State additional submitted that 5% of the posts stuffed via promotion did enable diploma or diploma holders, and therefore, there was no discrimination.
Reasoning of the Court docket
The Court docket examined Rule 8(II) of the 2016 Guidelines, as learn with Schedule-III, Serial No. 1, which prescribed “Three years diploma” as the only qualification, and discovered this exclusion of diploma holders irrational and disproportionate to the thing of recruitment.
The Court docket referred to the choice of the Supreme Court docket in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the place it had been held that manifest arbitrariness should be one thing accomplished by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or with out ample figuring out precept, and when one thing is completed which is extreme and disproportionate, such laws could be manifestly arbitrary.
Referring to the recruitment practices of different State departments the place each diploma and diploma holders have been eligible, the Court docket famous that the restriction imposed solely by the Public Well being Engineering Division lacked any rational foundation. “…Different departments of the State e.g. Division of Public Works and CSPDCL for the submit of Sub-Engineer, the eligibility standards permits each Diploma in addition to Diploma holders. Thus, the act of the State in excluding the Diploma holders for recruitment on the submit of Sub-Engineer within the division of Public Well being and Engineering is an act of discrimination”, the Court docket noticed.
The Court docket held, “Making use of the nicely settled rules of regulation to the information of the current case and for the causes made hereinabove, the Rule 8 (II) Column (5) of Schedule-III, Serial No. 1 Sub-Engineer (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) of the Guidelines 2016 revealed in the Gazette Notification dated 30/12/2016 is asserted as unlawful, with out jurisdiction and Extremely-Vires.”
Accordingly, the Court docket allowed the writ petitions, whereas directing, “Since, pursuant to the interim order handed by this Court docket, the candidates having the diploma in engineering have participated within the recruitment course of, and this Court docket declared the Rule 8 (II) Column (5) of Schedule-III, Serial No. 1 Sub-Engineer (Civil/Mechanical/ Electrical) of the Guidelines 2016 revealed within the Gazette Notification dated 30/12/2016 as Extremely Vires, the respondent’s authorities are directed to proceed with the additional choice course of, topic to the situation that the candidates fulfill different requisite standards as could also be prescribed by the Respondents’ Division within the commercial.”
