Dismissed

Mining Engineers Welfare Association v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Aug 2023WPS/2473/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition challenging the educational qualification for the post of Mining Officer under the State Recruitment Rules, 2005. The court held that fixing qualifications is the prerogative of the employer and an association lacks locus standi without impleading a specific individual member.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds that the employer has the prerogative to fix qualifications and the petitioner association lacked locus standi without impleading a specific member.

Mining Engineers Welfare Association Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

Page 1 of 10

¶2

NAFR

¶3

{W.P.(S)No.2473/2022}

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

Writ Petition (S) No.2473 of 2022

¶6

Mining Engineer's Welfare Association, through its Vice President Vivek Shrivastava, S/o D.K. Shrivastava, aged about 37 years, R/o 12/147, Ekta Sadan, Gourinagar, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Mining Resource and Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

Secretary, Public Service Commission, Chhattisgarh, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India, at Shashtri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi – 110001

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner: Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 / State: -

¶15

Mr. Amrito Das, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.3: Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Arvind Singh Chandel, JJ.

¶17

Order On Board (04/08/2023)

¶18

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶19

The petitioner Association seeks to challenge the constitutional validity of S.No.3 Column (6) of Schedule-III (Rule 9) of the Chhattisgarh Geology and Mining, Class I and

¶20

Page 2 of 10

¶21

{W.P.(S)No.2473/2022}

¶22

II Service Recruitment Rules, 2005 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2005’) by which age and qualifications for direct recruitment to the post of Mining Officer has been prescribed as “Post graduate degree in Geology or M.Tech. degree in Practical / Applied Geology”.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner Association that advertisement has been issued by the State Government on 1-2-2022 inviting applications for the post of Mining Officer and as per the required qualification, Science in Geology is allowed, whereas the persons holding Bachelor degree in Mining Engineering / M.Tech. in Mining Engineering have been deprived of the said post which is unconstitutional and in other States of Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Gujarat & Bihar, persons holding the qualification of degree of Mining Engineering have been allowed for the post of Mining Officer and as such, it is unconstitutional and violative of their rights under Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore, S.No.3 Column (6) of Schedule-III (Rule 9) of the Rules of 2005 be declared ultra vires.

¶24

Return has been filed on behalf of the State / respondents No.1 & 2 stating inter alia that mere hardship of any individual cannot be the ground of challenge to challenge any rule or regulation or Act. It is further stated that mere individual hardships cannot be the ground for challenging the vires of any enactment. Placing reliance upon the decision rendered

¶25

Page 3 of 10

¶26

{W.P.(S)No.2473/2022}

¶27

by the Supreme Court in the matter of Prafulla Kumar Das and others v. State of Orissa and others 1 it has been stated that it would not be permissible to declare a valid legislation ultra vires only because it may cause some hardship to the petitioner. A mere hardship cannot be a ground for striking it down unless it is held to be suffering form the vice of discrimination or unreasonableness. It is for the petitioner to prove clearly and specifically as to why and how the said provision contained in S.No.3 Column (6) of Schedule-III (Rule 9) of the Rules of 2005 is ultra vires the constitutional provisions. It is also submitted that prima facie , the petitioner Association has failed to do so and hence, the present petition is devoid of merit and substance and accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is also the stand of the State / respondents No.1 & 2 that it is always the choice and prerogative of an employer to fix the minimum essential educational qualification required for appointment. Fixing up the selection mode, procedure, criteria for recruitment is the sole domain of the employer and the courts should abstain from transferring into the jurisdiction of the employer, unless the same is patently illegal or arbitrary. It has been further stated in the return that fixing of qualification for appointment on the post of Mining Officer is in consonance with the nature of work and duties attached with the said post, therefore, the same is neither illegal nor arbitrary. It has also been stated 1 (2003) 11 SCC 614

¶28

Page 4 of 10

¶29

{W.P.(S)No.2473/2022}

¶30

that the State of Chhattisgarh is a progressive State and in the State of Chhattisgarh, major minerals which are found predominantly are coal, iron ore, limestone, dolomite and tin. Apart from these minerals, the State of Chhattisgarh has been earmarked for diamond and gold also and other minerals like fluorite, manganese, garnet, fire clay, soapstone and alexandrite, etc., which are extremely important are also being continuously searched in the State of Chhattisgarh. A Mining Officer has to conduct the Integrated Geological Studies and studies for appraisal of mineral deposits through inspection of mines in any part, periodic updation of National Mineral Inventory of leasehold areas, inspect the Prospecting License area and to stop proposals, mine environmental / Pollution Control; techno-economic feasibility studies of the deposit and scrutiny of mining plan / scheme, etc.. Further, having postgraduation in Geology, a Mining Officer will have not only the information and knowledge of kind of minerals, extension methods, but also the knowledge of other associate minerals, changes in the category of minerals due to various reasons and also keeps an eye on the activities related to sustainable development and exploitation of minerals and therefore for appointment to the post of Mining Officer, the qualification of Post Graduation in Geology or M.Tech, in Practical / Applied Geology has been prescribed. It has been further submitted that the previous rules made by the erstwhile State of Madhya

¶31

Page 5 of 10

¶32

{W.P.(S)No.2473/2022}

¶33

Pradesh in the name of the Madhya Pradesh Geology and Mining Service Class I and Class II Recruitment Rules, 1965 also provides that for appointment on the post of Mining Officer, a candidate should have possessed the post graduation degree in Geology or M.Tech. degree in Applied Geology. The said qualification has been repeated by the newly carved out State of Chhattisgarh by making the Rules in the year 2005 also. Thus, there is no scope available to the petitioner to challenge the recruitment rules to insert Bachelor of Engineering in Mining as the minimum educational qualification for the post of Mining Officer. As such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶34

Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Association, would submit that prescription of such qualification for the post of Mining Officer would deprive the members of the petitioner Association from competing for the said post, as such, the impugned rule is violative of their fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, as such, the Rule being contrary to law, deserves to be declared ultra vires.

¶35

Mr. Amrito Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State / respondents No.1 & 2, would support the impugned rule and submit that prescription of qualification is the prerogative of the State Government or the employer, the petitioner Association has no say in that and the Rule

¶36

Page 6 of 10

¶37

{W.P.(S)No.2473/2022}

¶38

under challenge is in accordance with law, it is neither said to be violative of the constitutional provisions nor it is contrary to law and therefore it is being not convenient to the petitioner Association and its members could not appear in the examination, the Rule is not liable to be declared ultra vires.

¶39

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶40

The Rule under challenge is S.No.3 Column (6) of Schedule-III (Rule 9) of the Rules of 2005 which states as under: -

¶41

SCHEDULE-III

¶42

(See Rule 9)

¶43

Age and qualifications of the persons of direct recruitment

¶44

Name of Department	S.No.	Name of Post	Minimum age	Maximum age	Required Educational qualifications and experience
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Mineral	1	xxx	xxx	xxx	xxx
Resources Deartment	2	xxx	xxx	xxx	xxx
p	3	Mining Officer	21	30 years	Post graduate degree in Geology or M.Tech. Degree in Practical / Applied Geology
	4	xxx	xxx	xxx	xxx

¶45

A careful perusal of the aforesaid Rule would show that required educational qualifications and experience for the post of Mining Officer has been prescribed as post graduate degree in Geology or M.Tech. degree in Practical/Applied Geology. It

¶46

Page 7 of 10

¶47

{W.P.(S)No.2473/2022}

¶48

is well settled law that inclusion / exclusion of a particular subject for consideration for appointment to a particular post is the prerogative of the State Government or the employer and the employer has all the right to choose, in its own wisdom and to permit the candidate qualified in particular subjects or group of subjects to participate or be eligible for recruitment in a particular post.

¶49

At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Maharashtra Public Service Commission Through its Secretary v. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others 2 in which it has been held that essential qualifications for appointment to post, it is for employer to decide according to needs and nature of work. It has been observed in paragraph 9 of the report as under:

¶50

“9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive rewriting of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to

¶51

2 (2019) 6 SCC 362

¶52

Page 8 of 10

¶53

{W.P.(S)No.2473/2022}

¶54

go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.”

¶55

In the matter of Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and another v. Anit Kumar Das 3, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the courts to consider and assess.

¶56

Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the principles of law laid down in the above stated judgments, it is quite vivid that prescription of educational qualification for a post is the sole prerogative of the employer and merely because a candidate is not having that qualification for the said post and he / she is finding difficult to appear in the selection process for the particular post for want of desired educational qualification, the educational qualification so prescribed in the relevant rules cannot be struck down unless it is manifestly arbitrary or discriminatory or violative to the provisions of the Constitution of India. Merely because members of the petitioner Association are being deprived of competing for the post of Mining Officer by prescription of such qualification, the said Rule i.e. S.No.3 Column (6) of Schedule-III (Rule 9) of the Rules of 2005 cannot be struck down. More particularly, the

¶57

3 (2021) 12 SCC 80

¶58

Page 9 of 10

¶59

{W.P.(S)No.2473/2022}

¶60

petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the impugned rule is either violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India or violative of Article 14/16 of the Constitution of India or it suffers from manifest arbitrariness and it has not been shown to be discriminatory.

¶61

There is one more reason for not entertaining the writ petition, as the petition has been filed by the Association through its Vice President and admittedly, no constitutional or fundamental right of the petitioner Association is said to have been violated, moreover, no member of the petitioner Association has been impleaded as party petitioner in this writ petition. A person who challenges the constitutionality of a statute must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the enforcement of the statute and the injury complained of is justiciable.

¶62

It is well settled that a person whose rights and interests are adversely affected by an unconstitutional law can challenge the validity of the law on any ground which affects such validity. For instance, he can challenge the validity of the law on the ground that the subject-matter of legislation was not within the province of the Legislature which passed the law. He can also challenge the validity of the law on the ground that it infringes one of the Fundamental Rights conferred by the Constitution. (See Dwarkadas Shrinivas v. The

¶63

Page 10 of 10

¶64

{W.P.(S)No.2473/2022}

¶65

Sholapur Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. and others 4.) In Dwarkadas Shrinivas (supra), S.R. Das, J., in a separate but concurring judgment held as under: -

¶66

“… The true principle being that only a person who is directly affected by a law can challenge the validity of that law and that a person whose own right or interest has not been violated or threatened cannot impugn the law on the ground that somebody else’s right has been infringed, the same principle must prevail irrespective of the form of the proceeding in which the question of constitutionality is raised.”

¶67

As such, the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner Association without impleading its member as a party petitioner in this writ petition, has no locus to question the constitutional validity of such rule in light of the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dwarkadas Shrinivas (supra) and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this count.

¶68

In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s).

¶69

Sd/Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Judge

¶70

Soma

¶71

4 AIR 1954 SC 119

Mining Engineers Welfare Association v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mining Engineers Welfare Association v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devraj Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Akhtar Abbas Vs Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog

Manoranjan Jaisawal Vs M/S Krishna Builders and Developers

Sahendra Kumar Sinha Vs Coal India Limited

Smt. Neelam Ahmed Vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Dr. (Smt) Vibha Dadheech Vs Indira Kala Sangeet Vishvidyalaya