The High Court dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of 2008 Rules requiring departmental exams for school promotions. The court held petitions fail due to non-joinder of necessary parties affected by the outcome, despite Supreme Court direction for impleadment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Judgment Reserved on: 19/07/2017
Judgment Delivered on : 01/08/2017
Writ Petition (S) No. 4012 of 2010
---- Petitioners
Versus
---- Respondents
And
Writ Petition (S) No. 4581 of 2010
2
Vs
---- Respondents
And
Writ Petition (S) No. 4686 of 2010
---- Petitioners
Vs
---- Respondents
3
And
Writ Petition (S) No. 5536 of 2010
Puni Ram Chauhan S/o Late Dhodhi Chauhan, Aged About 42 Years, Shiksha Karmi Grade II, R/o In Front Of Aansh Hotel, Kumharpara, Jagatpur, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)
---- Petitioner
Vs
---- Respondents
And
Writ Petition (S) No. 4239 of 2010
---- Petitioners
Vs
---- Respondents
4
And
Writ Petition (S) No. 5985 of 2010
---- Petitioners
Vs
And
Writ Petition (S) No. 5996 of 2010
5
---- Petitioners
Vs
---- Respondents
And
Writ Petition (S) No. 5997 of 2010
---- Petitioners
Vs
---- Respondents
And
Writ Petition (S) No. 5351 of 2010
6
---- Petitioners
Vs
---- Respondents
And
Writ Petition (S) No. 4919 of 2010
---- Petitioners
Vs
---- Respondents
And
Writ Petition (S) No. 4818 of 2010
Bhagirathi Beghel Aged About 48 Years S/o Shri Dau Lal Baghel, Assistant B.E.O. Fingeshwar, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
---- Petitioner
Vs
7
---- Respondents
And
Writ Petition (S) No. 4819 of 2010
---- Petitioners
Vs
---- Respondents
And
Writ Petition (S) No. 4876 of 2010
---- Petitioners
Vs
---- Respondents
8
And
Writ Petition (S) No. 4891 of 2010
Amarnath Yadu S/o Ramsingh Yadu, Aged About 51 Years Head Master, Primary School Sahrikhar, Block Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh)
---- Petitioners
Vs
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Shri Anoop Majumdar, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Y.S.Thakur, Additional Advocate General For Intervenor : Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge
C.A.V. Judgment
Per Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice
9
"Leave granted.
10
has been made by any of the writ petitioners seeking impleadment of any other person.
11
all the candidates are to be impleaded. It is laid down in Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh; (1984) 4 SCC 251 , that a High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the person who would be vitally affected by the judgment being before it as respondent and if the petitioners refused to so join them, the High Court ought to dismiss the writ petition for non-joinder of necessary parties. In the case in hand, the order of remand dated 16.09.2014 passed by the Apex Court was necessitated fundamentally because the necessary parties were not impleaded in the writ petitions. Inspite of that, the Petitioners have not taken any steps to implead the parties who would be affected by any decision that may be rendered in these writ petitions in favour of the writ petitioners. Under such circumstances, no relief could be granted to the Petitioners who have not impleaded the necessary parties inspite of adequate opportunity in this regard. See also for support: K.H.Siraj v. High Court of Kerala; (2006) 6 SCC 395 . A.M.S.Sushanth v. M. Sujata; (2000) 10 SCC 197 is authority for the position that principles of natural justice demand that any person who was likely to be adversely affected by the order should have had an opportunity of being heard. It was held in Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht; AIR 2010 SC 2613 that non-joinder of necessary party is fatal to such writ petitions.
12
except in cases of promotions to Class I posts carrying higher pay scale, which was to be made on the merit-cum-seniority. The plea raised by the writ petitioners is fundamentally that on completion of the requisite service, they were eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Lecturer or Headmaster, Middle School, but such eligibility for promotion was curtailed by the prescription of departmental limited examination through the 2008 Rules. The authority to make 2008 Rules in supersession of 2003 Rules in exercise of power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, is not and cannot be, disputed. The Establishment is well within the authority to recast the modality of appointment to higher cadres, including where promotion is the method of appointment. No case of any hostile discrimination has been made out. The yearning or aspiration of a person in service to promotion under the 2003 Rules is not something that amounts to unsurmountable legitimate expectation eligible to be reckoned as a crystallised right in terms of the Constitution that would invalidate the 2008 Rules on any principle relating to validity. The plea of the Petitioners on this count, therefore fails.
13
Sd/Sd/-
(Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) (Sharad Kumar Gupta) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Subbu
3 issues framed by the court
Whether writ petitions challenging the 2008 Recruitment and Promotion Rules can be maintained without impleading necessary candidate parties.
Whether the prescription of departmental limited examinations for headmaster posts violates Article 309 or legitimate expectation principles.
Whether the 2014 Rules operating after the Supreme Court remand order can be applied given the non-impleadment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar PradeshRelied on¶11
Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh; (1984) 4 SCC 251 · Who else cites this
K.H. Siraj v. High Court of KeralaRelied on¶11
K.H.Siraj v. High Court of Kerala; (2006) 6 SCC 395 · Who else cites this
A.M.S. Sushanth v. M. SujataRelied on¶11
A.M.S.Sushanth v. M. Sujata; (2000) 10 SCC 197 · Who else cites this
Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta BishtRelied on¶11
Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht; AIR 2010 SC 2613 · Who else cites this
Civil Appeal Nos. 8906-8932 of 2014Referred¶2
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sant Lal Sahu
Ramkumar Choubey
Dhelu Ram Verma
Yogendranath Pandey
State of Chhattisgarh
District Education Officer
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Sharad Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
