DINESH KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking Writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners herein challenge the constitutional validity of Sl. No.9 enacted under Rules 14 and 15 of Scheduled-IV of the Chhattisgarh State Municipal (Executive/Engineering/ Health) Services, Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2017 (henceforth shall be referred to as, Rules of 2017) by which 12 years experience has been prescribed for Sanitation Inspector to qualify for the promotional post of Health Officer, branding it to be arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional and seeking a writ to declare it ultra vires and unconstitutional to the provisions of Sec. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Petitioner No.1 was appointed on the post of Sanitary Inspector on 22/10/1997 and Petitioners No.2 to 6 were also appointed on the post of Sanitary Inspector in the year 2013 and all of them are said to have working on the said post since their appointment. Grievance of the Petitioners is that different eligibility criteria have been fixed in Schedule-IV of the Rules of 2017 for promotion from the post of Sanitation Inspector to the post Health Officer for which 12 years experience has been prescribed on the post of Sanitation Inspector, which is clearly arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further grievance of the Petitioners is that after being promoted to the post of Health Officer, there are no further promotional avenues available for the Sanitary Inspector and therefore the Rules of 2017 require suitable amendment by way of change of cadre for promotion from the post of Sanitation Inspection to the post of Chief Municipal Officer. According to the Petitioners, there are only six posts of Health Officer available in the Municipal Council/Corporation in the State of Chhattisgarh. It is the further case of the Petitioners that Revenue Inspector, Revenue Sub Inspector, Accountant, Assistant Grade-I and II, who are having lower grade pay and less experience, are being promoted to the higher post of Chief Municipal Officer whereas the Sanitary Inspectors are being treated in a discriminatory manner in utter violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, the Petitioners also drew the attention of this Court to the Order dtd. 11/2/2019 passed in W.P.(S) No.3793/2018 titled as 'Pushpa Khalko and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others' whereby Schedule-IV of the Rules of 2017 in respect to grant of avenues of promotion to Revenue Inspectors on the post of Chief Executive Officers has been struck down by a Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh declaring it to be utlra vires. Accordingly, the Petitioners prayed for the Rules of 2017 to be struck down declaring it to be ultra vires and unconstitutional and further prayed for framing of new rules by way of amendment in the Schedule-IV of the Rules of 2017 for promotion of Sanitary Inspector to the post of Chief Municipal Officer at part with the criteria fixed for the Revenue Inspectors.

(3.) Respondents/State filed their reply stating that since Petitioner No.1 was not found fit, he could not be granted promotion on the post of Health Officer but he has been paid time scale pay from time to time and further increments as per his entitlement. Similarly, Respondents No.2 to 6 also found not eligible as they do not fulfill minimum 12 years service period required on the post of Sanitary Inspector to be promoted on the post of Health Officer. Further, the relief sought for by the Petitioners for claiming promotion to the post of Chief Municipal Officer is also without any basis as the service rules prescribes for promotion channel of Sanitary Inspector to the post of Health Officer and it is in accordance with the proportion and as per the requirements and necessity of the Municipal Council/Corporation in the State subject to alteration in the event of administrative exigency so arises. The works assigned to the Sanitary Inspector and Health Officer are entirely different from the work assigned to Revenue Inspector, Revenue Sub Inspector, Accountant, Assistant Grade-I and II and Chief Municipal Officer. Thus, the criteria fixed in Schedule-IV of the Rules of 2017 are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory and are strictly in accordance with law and the challenge made by the Petitioners is liable to be rejected.