IRFAN QUREASHI Vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the notification was published inviting application by the PSC respondent No.1 on 27/11/2019 which was pursuant to the official communication of 23/11/2019. Learned counsel would submit that the said notification do not carve out any space for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) people which was brought about by the constitutional amendment i.e., Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019. It is stated that since State Legislature was not in session as such the Governor of Chhattisgarh in exercise of power under Article 213 (1) promulgated the Ordinance of 2019 which is named and styled 'The Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) (Sanshodhan) Ordinance, 2019'. In such ordinance 10% reservation was provided to the EWS. It is stated that the Legislative Assembly of the State was held on 2-3rd October, 2019. In such session no legislative business was carried out and it was only meant for paying tribute to the father of nation (Rashtrapita) Mahatma Gandhi. Consequently this cannot be constituted as an Assembly of the Legislature for the purpose of Article 213 (2) or Article 174 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that for the Legislative business the Assembly started on 25th November, 2019 and ended on 2nd December, 2019. It is stated that for the purpose of Article 174, this date would be constituted as re-assembly and therefore the ordinance which was promulgated on 4 th September, 2019 by the Governor would hold the field. It is contended that it would be important to find out as to when the State took a decision to conduct the examination as PSC is the only executing body to conduct the examination and if it was when the ordinance was existing the advertisement would be bad in law. He would submit that if the decision was taken prior to publication of the notification in the paper by the State it would amount to playing fraud with the Constitution. He referred to case law reported in (2017) 3 SCC 1, Para 40 (Krishna Kumar Singh and anr. Vs. State of Bihar) and would submit that laying of an Ordinance before Legislature is mandatory. Consequently, action of the PSC at the behest of the State would be bad.

(2.) Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that under the admitted facts the Ordinance by the Governor was on 4 th September, 2019 and as per Article 213 (2) and he would submit that as per Annexure R-1 the session of the Legislative Assembly re-assembled on 2 nd October, 2019, therefore by virtue of sub-clause 2 of Article 213, six weeks expired on 13th November, 2019 and the Ordinance ceased to operate thereby after 13/11/2019 and the advertisement since was made on 27/11/2019 the reservation of the EWS was not given effect to. He further submits that subsequently even if re-assembly of the State Legislature is accepted which started on 25th November, 2019 and ended on 2nd December, 2019 even after the expiry of six weeks therefrom ordinance was not laid in the House, therefore, the mandamus to this effect cannot be issued by this court.

(3.) Perused the documents annexed to the petition. The undisputed facts are the Central Government amended the Constitution by One Hundred and Third Amendment Act, 2019, which reads as under :