Bilaspur – The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a writ petition challenging the promotion of work-charged employees of the Public Works Department to the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil), holding that the State’s amendment to the service rules was a valid exercise of power under Article 309 of the Constitution and did not violate Articles 14 or 16.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal rejected the challenge mounted by Tracers and Assistant Draftsmen working in the PWD. The petition questioned the constitutional validity of the amendment dated 22 January 2022 to the Chhattisgarh Public Works Department (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2016, which expanded the feeder cadre for promotion to include diploma or degree holder Field Assistants serving under the work-charged establishment.
The petitioners contended that work-charged and contingency-paid employees are not regular government servants and therefore could not be considered for promotion to regular cadre posts. They argued that such employees are governed by a distinct service regime, lack regularisation, and do not fulfil the requirement of five years of regular service. According to them, treating work-charged employees on par with regularly appointed staff amounted to treating unequals as equals, in violation of the constitutional guarantees of equality. They also sought quashing of promotion orders issued in July and August 2023 by which several Field Assistants were promoted as Sub-Engineers.
Opposing the petition, the State submitted that the amendment was a policy decision aimed at removing stagnation and providing career progression to qualified technical personnel who had been excluded due to an omission in the 2016 Rules. It was argued that the State enjoys wide latitude under Article 309 to frame and amend service rules, and that judicial interference is warranted only on limited grounds such as lack of legislative competence, manifest arbitrariness, or infringement of fundamental rights. The State further pointed out that the petition was filed more than two years after the amendment and over a year after the promotions, rendering it liable to dismissal on the ground of delay and laches.
Accepting the State’s submissions, the Court held that the authority competent to frame service rules is equally competent to amend them. It reiterated that no government servant has a vested right to promotion and that, at best, an employee has a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the rules prevailing at the time of consideration. The Bench clarified that a mere reduction in chances of promotion does not amount to violation of Articles 14 or 16.
The Court also observed that the classification introduced by the amendment was based on educational qualifications and experience, and not merely on the nature of the establishment. Field Assistants from the work-charged establishment were included in the feeder category only if they possessed the requisite diploma or degree and the prescribed experience. This, the Court held, satisfied the test of reasonable classification and bore a clear nexus with the objective of improving efficiency and addressing stagnation within the department.
On the issue of delay, the Bench noted that the petitioners were aware of both the amendment and the subsequent promotion orders but chose not to challenge them in a timely manner. Instead, they had submitted representations seeking enhancement of the promotional quota, which the Court held amounted to acquiescence. Relying on settled Supreme Court precedent, the Court observed that stale service claims should not be entertained as they unsettle settled positions and undermine administrative certainty.
Concluding that the amendment was neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional, the High Court dismissed the writ petition on merits as well as on the ground of delay, and upheld the validity of the promotion orders.
Case Reference: WPS No. 6899 of 2024, Bashil Minj and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others. Counsel for the petitioners was Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. The State was represented by Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General, while the private respondents were represented by Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate, and Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate.