Citation : 2020 Local Law (CG) 120 : 2020(4)CGLJ102 : 2020(II)MPJR(SC)102
On February 7, 2020, a single-judge bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, led by Justice Goutam Bhaduri, dismissed multiple petitions challenging the state government’s recruitment advertisement for failing to give effect to reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections. The petitions argued that an ordinance enacted to provide 10 percent EWS reservation should have been given effect when the State Public Service Commission advertised post vacancies in late November 2019. The court, after a careful reading of constitutional provisions and the timeline of events, found otherwise.
The legal core of the dispute revolved around the lifespan of an ordinance and the constitutional requirement that an ordinance promulgated during a legislative recess must be laid before the legislature and will cease to operate six weeks after the legislature reassembles if it is not converted into law. The Governor of Chhattisgarh had promulgated the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019 on September 4, 2019 to introduce a 10 percent reservation for persons from the Economically Weaker Section in state services pursuant to the central One Hundred and Third Amendment of the Constitution. The petitioners contended the state had effectively decided to run the recruitment process while the ordinance was still operative and that the PSC advertisement issued on November 27, 2019 should have reflected EWS reservation.
The court reconstructed the timeline and applied Article 213 and Article 174 of the Constitution to the facts. The state legislature was summoned to meet on October 2, 2019, and held sittings on October 2 and 3. Because an ordinance ceases to operate at the expiration of six weeks from reassembly unless it is placed and approved, the High Court calculated the ordinance’s operative period as expiring on November 13, 2019. The PSC advertisement appeared after that date, and therefore the ordinance was no longer in force when the advertisement was published. Even allowing for the argument that the later legislative sitting from November 25 to December 2, 2019 might change the reckoning, the court found that the ordinance in any event had lapsed because it was not tabled and enacted within the required period. For these reasons, the court held it could not direct the legislature or executive to revive or enact the lapsed ordinance or to issue a mandamus to table it.
The judgment also emphasized constitutional structure and separation of powers. The court observed that ordinance-making is an exceptional legislative tool for extraordinary situations and that it is the legislature’s role to convert an ordinance into a statute if it is to continue beyond the constitutional timeframe. Judicial intervention to compel the legislature to enact a lapsed ordinance would amount to intrusion into the legislative domain. The court therefore declined the petitioners’ request for mandamus. The decision follows earlier precedents recognizing that consequential actions taken under a lapsed ordinance cannot survive the lapse, and it reinforces the procedural safeguard that ordinances must be presented to and either adopted or rejected by the legislature within the constitutionally specified period.
Practically speaking, the ruling leaves intact the recruitment exercise conducted by the Public Service Commission as advertised in late November 2019, because the ordinance granting EWS reservation had ceased to operate before the advertisement. For litigants and administrators alike, the decision is a reminder that timing matters: ordinance promulgation, legislative reassembly, and the six-week clock under Article 213 are decisive for whether temporary executive legislation survives to affect administrative action.
Case Details : WPS Nos. 198, 475 and 643 of 2020, Irfan Qureashi and Ors. vs. Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission and Ors. (07.02.2020)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Rohit Sharma, Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocates and Party-in-Person. For Respondents/Defendant: Amrito Das, Addl. A.G., Rohishek Verma, Advocate appears on behalf of Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Constitution Of India – Article 15, Constitution Of India – Article 16, Constitution Of India – Article 174, Constitution Of India – Article 174(1), Constitution Of India – Article 19, Constitution Of India – Article 213, Constitution Of India – Article 213(1), Constitution Of India – Article 213(2), Constitution Of India – Article 29, Constitution Of India – Article 30; Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 – Section 1, Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 – Section 10, Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 – Section 2, Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 – Section 4
Cases Referred:
Krishna Kumar Singh and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. ( 2017 ) 3 SCC 1 : [ 2017 ] 5 SCR 160; Sri Chand Kasera and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. ( 1998 ) 8 SCC 725
======
छत्तीसगढ़ उच्च न्यायालय ने 7 फरवरी 2020 को अपने एक महत्वपूर्ण फैसले में कहा कि राज्य सरकार द्वारा जारी आर्थिक रूप से कमजोर वर्ग (EWS) को 10 प्रतिशत आरक्षण देने वाला अध्यादेश विज्ञापन जारी होने से पहले ही निष्प्रभावी (लैप्स) हो चुका था। न्यायमूर्ति गौतम भदुरी की एकलपीठ ने कहा कि संविधान के अनुच्छेद 213 के अनुसार कोई भी अध्यादेश विधानसभा के पुनः एकत्र होने के छह सप्ताह बाद तक ही प्रभावी रहता है, यदि उसे विधेयक के रूप में पारित न किया जाए।
राज्यपाल द्वारा 4 सितंबर 2019 को जारी अध्यादेश को विधानसभा में समय पर प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया था और वह 13 नवंबर 2019 को स्वतः समाप्त हो गया। इस बीच लोक सेवा आयोग ने 27 नवंबर 2019 को भर्ती विज्ञापन जारी किया। अदालत ने स्पष्ट किया कि उस समय अध्यादेश प्रभावी नहीं था, इसलिए आयोग को EWS आरक्षण देने के लिए बाध्य नहीं किया जा सकता।
अदालत ने याचिकाएं निरस्त करते हुए कहा कि न्यायालय विधानमंडल को अध्यादेश पारित करने या पुनर्जीवित करने का आदेश नहीं दे सकता। यह मामला बताता है कि संविधान में निर्धारित समयसीमा और प्रक्रिया का पालन न होने पर अध्यादेश स्वतः समाप्त हो जाता है।