Chhattisgarh high court declares exclusion of engineering graduates from sub engineer posts as arbitrary and discriminatory
The court stated that Rule 8 (II) Column (5) of Schedule-III, Serial No. 1, of the Chhattisgarh Public Health Engineering Department (Non-Gazetted) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2016, is "illegal and without jurisdiction." Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru delivered a common order on two writ petitions filed by over two dozen individuals.
The petitioners, holding graduate degrees in engineering, sought to participate in the direct recruitment examination for Sub-Engineer (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) posts.
The examination was scheduled for 27 April 2025, following an advertisement issued on 7 March 2025. The petitioners argued that the 2016 rules, which prescribed a three-year diploma as the only educational qualification for direct recruitment to Sub-Engineer posts, were discriminatory.
They pointed out that for promotional quotas (5 per cent), both diploma and degree holders were eligible. They further highlighted that other state departments, such as the Public Works Department and CSPDCL, permitted both diploma and degree holders to apply for Sub-Engineer positions.
The petitioners' counsels, Ajay Shrivastava, G P Mathur, and Pratibha Sahu, contended that an engineering degree is a higher qualification than a diploma, and thus, degree holders should not be barred from applying.
They cited the Supreme Court's judgement in the Puneet Sharma & Others v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & Another case, which directed states to allow degree holders to participate in recruitment processes.
The State, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, argued that the 2016 rules maintained the same qualification criteria as the earlier 1979 and 2012 rules. The State also submitted that the 5% promotion quota for in-service candidates, which includes diploma and degree holders, was a separate provision for existing employees who may have acquired higher qualifications during their service. The Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (CGPEB), the recruiting agency, stated that it acts based on existing rules and departmental requisitions.
The intervenors supported the State's contentions.
The High Court observed that excluding degree holders, who possess superior knowledge and technical skills, was unreasonable and counterproductive to recruiting competent individuals. The court noted that this restriction undermined principles of fairness and equal opportunity, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 'The exclusion of degree holders, who possess the necessary knowledge and technical skills, from eligibility for the post is arbitrary, unreasonable, and counterproductive to the goal of recruiting competent individuals.
It violates the principles of fairness, equal opportunity, and the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. Notably, other state departments like Public Works and CSPDCL allow both Diploma and Degree holders for similar posts, making the exclusion in the Public Health and Engineering Department discriminatory,' the court stated.
An interim order was issued on 25 March 2025, allowing degree holders to provisionally apply for the posts, subject to the final outcome of the petitions. The court clarified that this order would apply to all similarly situated candidates. Following the declaration of the rule as "ultra vires," the High Court directed the respondent authorities to proceed with the selection process, ensuring that engineering degree holders are allowed to participate, provided they meet other prescribed criteria in the advertisement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Deccan Herald
13 hours ago
- Deccan Herald
RJD moves SC against EC's revision of electoral rolls in Bihar
In his plea filed through advocate Fauzia Shakil, Manoj Jha said EC's June 24 order be quashed for being violative of Articles 14, 21, 325 and 326 of the Constitution of India.
New Indian Express
15 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Guiding principle to defend, not deny the right to vote
The worry is about electors at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid, which comprises unorganised and migrant labour and the oppressed classes. Now is the time in Bihar, when the Kharif sowing and transplantation signal migration of labour looking for construction work outside the state. The SIR coincides with the monsoon when deprived sections are busy with the annual tedium of locating temporary homes to escape flooding. They possess Aadhaar and ration cards, but either they may not be available at their homes when the Commission's enumerators arrive, or they may not have the documents the Commission demands as proof of citizenship. The illiterate and poor majority cannot quickly acquire domicile or caste certificates and submit the filled forms before the deadline. In case of delayed submissions, SIR rules say 'the name of the elector cannot be included in the draft rolls'. The ECI subsequently said electors must submit enrolment forms in time and their accompanying documents can come in at scrutiny time also; that only defers the suspense. Are alternative mechanisms, such as witness testimony or affidavits, in place if a citizen can't provide documents or meet the deadline? In an abrupt, short exercise foisted on them, rigid systems and procedural obstacles cannot arbitrarily deny the right to vote. The State must play a facilitative role to enable the right. The default presumption must be of inclusion. In the long term, we must debate making the right to vote a fundamental right so that electors can seek direct judicial redressal, and disenfranchisement necessarily passes the test of reasonableness and proportionality, ensuring that it is never arbitrary or excessive. Democracy celebrates elections, more so, their participatory nature.
The Print
16 hours ago
- The Print
RJD moves SC against EC's revision of electoral rolls in Bihar
In his plea filed through advocate Fauzia Shakil, Jha said EC's June 24 order be quashed for being violative of Articles 14, 21, 325 and 326 of the Constitution of India. Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra has also approached the apex court against the EC's order. New Delhi, Jul 6 (PTI) Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Manoj Jha has moved the Supreme Court challenging an Election Commission's order directing for special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. The Rajya Sabha MP said that the impugned order is a tool of institutionalized disenfranchisement and 'it is being used to justify aggressive and opaque revisions of electoral rolls that disproportionately target Muslim, Dalit and poor migrant communities, as such, they are not random patterns but it is engineered exclusions.' He also sought direction to the poll body to hold the upcoming Bihar Assembly elections on the basis of the existing electoral rolls. The assembly polls in the state is due later this year. Jha said alternatively a direction be issued directing the poll authority to accept 'all the documents stipulated in Form 6 as documents in support of the declaration along with the Enumeration Form and Declaration Form (Annexure C and D enclosed with the Impugned Order dated 24-06-2025)'. 'The present petition is being filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other writ quashing and setting the order dated June 24, 2025 issued by respondent No.1 along with its subsequent clarificatory press note dated June 30, 2025, the same being violative of Articles 14, 21, 325 and 326 of the Constitution of India…,' the plea said. Jha said the next Bihar Assembly elections are scheduled to be held in November 2025 and in this background, the Election Commission has ordered a special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls without consultation with the political parties/ stakeholders. 'While the ECI has decided to commence the Special Intensive Revision in the entire country, the process has been initiated first in the State of Bihar, owing to the upcoming elections in the latter part of the year. 'The impugned order prescribes a schedule and requires the submission of enumeration form within 30 days, followed by filing of claims and objections and their disposal within 30 days,' the plea said, The impugned order is 'discriminatory, unreasonable and manifestly arbitrary and violates Article 14, 21 325, 326,' it added. 'It is humbly submitted that it is being used to justify aggressive and opaque revisions of electoral rolls that disproportionately target Muslim, Dalit and poor migrant communities, as such, they are not random patterns but it is engineered exclusions,' the plea said. Jha said the present SIR process is not only 'hasty and ill-timed', but has the effect of 'disenfranchising' crores of voters, thereby robbing them of their constitutional right to vote. 'Moreover, this exercise has been launched during the monsoon season in Bihar, when many districts in Bihar are affected by floods and local population is displaced, thereby making it extremely difficult and almost impossible for a large section of population to meaningfully participate in the process,' he contended in his plea. The RJD leader further contended that one of the most affected classes are the migrant workers, many of whom despite remaining listed in the 2003 voter rolls, are unlikely to be able to return to Bihar within the stipulated time frame of 30 days to submit their enumeration forms leading to automatic deletion of their names from the electoral roll in violation of R 21A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. 'It is humbly submitted that the stringent documentation requirements have the potential to negatively affect the backward, flood-affected, poor, SC, ST, unempowered minorities, migrants and they will be forced to run from pillar to post to get the documents within a period of just one month,' the plea said. Jha also said that the short deadlines make the whole process unreasonable and unworkable and has the effect of bypassing the procedure of conduct of inquiry into claims and objections as contemplated under the rules. Trinamool Congress leader and MP Mahua Moitra has also moved the Supreme Court challenging the Election Commission's order on special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. Moitra sought a direction from the apex court to restrain the EC from issuing similar orders for SIR of electoral rolls in other states of the country. A similar plea has also been filed by NGO Association of Democratic Reforms, challenging the poll body's direction for SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar. Several other civil society organisations like PUCL and activists like Yogendra Yadav have approached the top court against the EC's order. The EC on June 24 issued instructions to carry out an SIR in Bihar, apparently to weed out ineligible names and ensure only eligible citizens are included in the electoral roll. The last such revision in Bihar was conducted in 2003. According to the EC, the exercise was necessitated by rapid urbanisation, frequent migration, young citizens becoming eligible to vote, non-reporting of deaths, and inclusion of the names of foreign illegal immigrants. The SIR is being conducted by booth officers, who are conducting a house-to-house survey for verification. PTI MNL MNL KVK KVK This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
