Dismissed¶87

Aarti Katakwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jan 2025WPS/280/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: pleading defect; challenge to rules without specific pleadings; Rule 7 CG Lower Judicial Service Rule 2006 amendment by notification dated 05.07.2024 (enrolment as Advocate in eligibility criteria); CGPSC recruitment advertisement; All India Judges Association Case (2002 (4) SCC, 270) invoked in prayers; Union of India v. Manjurani Routray, Civil Appeal No.2299 of 2010 (SC, decided 01.09.2023), para 9, relied on; writ petitions WPS Nos. 241, 280, 291 and 350 of 2025 dismissed with liberty to file fresh petition; Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice with Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge; order marked NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition with proper prayer and pleadings. ¶87

Aarti Katakwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition with proper prayer and pleadings.

¶87

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitions seeking to set aside the amendment dated 05.07.2024 to Rule 7 of the CG Lower Judicial Service Rule 2006 (eligibility criterion of enrolment as an Advocate) and the consequent PSC advertisement could be sustained where the Rules themselves were not challenged, only the amendment was challenged, and the petitions contained no pleadings, leaving the respondents no opportunity to rebut.

¶77

Court's answer

The writ petitions are dismissed as the prayers made therein are defective — the Rules were not challenged, only the amendment was — and, in the absence of pleadings and averments, the respondents had no opportunity to rebut.

¶87

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh petition with proper prayer and pleadings.

¶88

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (NAFR) — common order dated 14.01.2025 disposing of WPS Nos. 241, 280, 291 and 350 of 2025 (Ramesh Sinha, CJ; Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J). Petitioners, presently serving as Assistant Public Prosecutors/ADPPOs, prayed for setting aside the notification dated 05.07.2024 amending Rule 7 of the CG Lower Judicial Service Rule 2006, which related enrolment as an Advocate to the eligibility criteria, and the consequent CGPSC advertisement, contending the amendment was contrary to All India Judges Association Case (2002 (4) SCC, 270) and arbitrary. HELD, petitions dismissed: following the dictum of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Manjurani Routray (Civil Appeal No.2299 of 2010, decided 01.09.2023), the prayers were defective in that the Rules themselves were not challenged and only the amendment was challenged, and the petitions contained no averments/pleadings, depriving the respondents of any opportunity to rebut. Petitioners granted liberty to file a fresh petition with proper prayer and pleadings.

¶1

¶2

2025:CGHC:2145-DB

¶3

Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date:2025.01.14 17:50:50 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 241 of 2025

¶7

Himalaya Ravi S/o Lallu Ram Ravi Aged About 27 Years Presently Working As Assistant Public Prosecutor, CBI, ACB, Imphal (Manipur) Permanent R/o Village Sara, Tahsil And P.S. Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary (Law), Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - High Court of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General, Bodari, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

WPS No. 280 of 2025

¶14

Aarti Katakwar D/o Keshavlal Katakwar Aged About 29 Years Presently Working As (ADPPO), Office of Deputy Director of Prosecution Jashpur (C.G.) Permanent R/o Village Dhurkot Tahsil And P.S. Janjgir - Champa District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)

¶15

... Petitioner

¶16

versus

¶17

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary (Law) Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶18

2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary North Block Sector 19, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - High Court of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General Bodari Bilaspur Distrit - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

¶21

WPS No. 291 of 2025

¶22

Durgesh Nandini Marawi D/o C.S. Marawi Aged About 25 Years Presently Working As ADPO Raipur (C.G.) R/o Sr. MIG 104 Vijeta Complex New Rajendra Nagar Raipur (C.G.)

¶23

versus

¶24

1 - State of C.G. Through Principal Secretary (Law) Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶25

2 - CG Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary North Block Sector 19, Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶26

3 - High Court of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General Bodari Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶27

... Respondents

¶28

WPS No. 350 of 2025

¶29

1 - Dulesh Mrig Sahu S/o Rohit Sahu Aged About 28 Years Presently Working As ADPPO, Office of Deputy Director of Prosecution Durg ( C.G. ) R/o G 01, Nyayik Karmchari Awasiya Parisar, Bhatgaon, District Balodabazar, Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶30

2 - Smt. Minaxhi Dewangan W/o S.K. Dewangan, Aged About 40 Years Presently Working As ADPPO, Office of Deputy Director of Prosecution Dantewada (C.G.) Permanent R/o Behind J.L.N.D. College Purhenapara, Sakti, District Sakti ( C.G. )

¶31

3 - Sounak Verma S/o Dilip Verma Aged About 27 Years Presently Working As Assistant Public Prosecutor, Central Bureau of Investigation, Kolkata (WB) Permanent R/o Ward No. 9, Amapara, Tahsil Mohla Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.)

¶32

4 - Shruti Kamble P.K. Kamble Aged About 28 Years Presently Working As ADPPO, Office of Deputy Director of Prosecution Surguja At Ambikapur (C.G.) Permanent R/o H. No. 2/a, Road No. 73, Sector 6, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.)

¶33

5 - Deepak Kumar Chandrakar C.P. Chandrakar Aged About 28 Years Presently Working As ADPPO, Office of Deputy Director of Prosecution

¶34

¶35

Raipur ( C.G. ) Permanent R/o C/o Chandrika Prasad Chandrakar, Pitiyajhar Daldali Road, Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶36

6 - Ghateshwari D/o Jait Ram Diwan Aged About 30 Years Presently Working As ADPPO, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) Permanent R/o Ward No. 2, Shanti Nagar, Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶37

7 - Rahul Gupta S/o Nrayan Prasad Gupta Aged About 27 Years Presently Working As ADPPO, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) R/o Shanti Nagar, Kansabel, District Jashpur (C.G.)

¶38

8 - Bhavana Khatwani Tarun Kumar Khatwani Aged About 28 Years Presently Working As ADPPO, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) R/o F- 10, Dharampura No. 1, Near Doordarshan Office, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)

¶39

9 - Ishu Deshmukh Jai Jai Ram Deshmukh Aged About 29 Years Presently Working As Law Officer, Central Jail, Durg (C.G.) Permanent R/o LIG 487 Housing Board Kohka Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

¶40

10 - Abhishek Singh Uikey Hiraman Lal Uikey Aged About 27 Years Presently Working As Adppo, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) R/o Transit Hostel Room No. 21, Vrindavan Colony, Jagdalpur, District Bastar ( C.G. )

¶41

... Petitioners

¶42

versus

¶43

1 - State of C.G. Through Principal Secretary (Law), Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶44

2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector - 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - High Court of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General, Bodari, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur ( C.G. )

¶45

... Respondents

¶46

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶47

For Petitioners	: Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
For Respondent No.1	: Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General with
	Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General
For Respondent No.2	: Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate

¶48

¶49

For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate

¶50

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶51

Order on Board

¶52

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶53

14.01.2025

¶54

1. Heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1, Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 as well as Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

¶55

2 . In WPS No.241 of 2025, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s) in this petition:

¶56

“10.1 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to

¶57

call for the entire record pertaining to the instant case.

¶58

10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set aside the amendment which relates to enrollment as and Advocate in eligibility criteria in Rule 7 of CG Lower Judicial Service Rule 2006 by notification dated 05.07.2024, and consequent advertisement of PSC as the same is against the direction of Hon’ble

¶59

¶60

Supreme Court rendered in case of All India Judges Association Case (2002 (4) SCC, 270) and arbitrary, in the interest of justice.

¶61

10.3 Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided to the petitioner. ”

¶62

3. In WPS No.280 of 2025, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):-

¶63

“10.1 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the instant case.

¶64

¶65

¶66

10.3 Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided to the petitioner. ”

¶67

4. In WPS No.291 of 2025, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):-

¶68

“10.1 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to

¶69

call for the entire record pertaining to the instant case.

¶70

¶71

10.3 Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided to the petitioner. ”

¶72

¶73

5. In WPS No.350 of 2025, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):-

¶74

“10.1 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the instant case.

¶75

¶76

10.3 Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided to the petitioner. ”

¶77

6. The prayer made in the present petitions appear to be defective as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the rules has not been challenged and only the amendment is challenged in the petition. It has been further pointed out by the learned

¶78

¶79

counsel for the respondents that the pleadings are also missing and in absence of the pleadings, the respondents do not have an opportunity to rebut the same.

¶80

7. Learned counsel appearing for the High Court of Chhattisgarh has relied upon paragraph-9 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others v. Manjurani Routray and others passed in Civil Appeal No.2299 of 2010 decided on 01.09.2023 , to submit that present petitions deserve to be dismissed as in absence of the pleadings, the respondents do not have an opportunity to rebut the same.

¶81

8. Paragraph-9 of the judgment passed in Manjurani Routray (supra) is relevant for the purpose, which is reproduced below for easy reference :-

¶82

“9. While hearing learned counsels appearing for the parties, we asked Shri B.H. Marlapalle, learned senior counsel along with Shri Shibashish Mishra appearing on behalf of the respondents and intervenors, as to how, in absence of any pleading setting out grounds challenging the vires of Rule 4(b) and in the absence of seeking any relief to that effect, the High Court was justified in exercising jurisdiction to declare Rule 4(b) as

¶83

¶84

ultra vires? In response, learned senior counsel has fairly stated that it is a defect in the pleadings as well as in the relief sought before the CAT and in the writ petition. But still, they made an unsuccessful attempt to satisfy this Court that the said rule appears to be discriminatory and therefore the High Court has rightly exercised the jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. It is a trite law that for striking down the provisions of law or for declaring any rules as ultra vires, specific pleading to challenge the rules and asking of such relief ought to be made, that is conspicuously missing in the present case. In the absence of such a pleading, the Union of India did not have an opportunity to rebut the same. The other side had no opportunity to bring on record the object, if any, behind the Rules that were brought into force. We are also of the considered view that, in the writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari challenging the order of the CAT, the High Court ought not to have declared Rule 4(b) as ultra vires in the above fact situation.

¶85

¶86

Therefore, the High Court was not justified to declare Rule 4(b) as ultra vires.”

¶87

9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the dictum rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Manjurani Routray (supra) , instant writ petitions are dismissed as the prayers made in the writ petitions appear to be defective as well as there are no averments made in the writ petitions and in absence of the pleadings, the respondents do not have an opportunity to rebut the same.

¶88

10. However, the petitioners is at liberty to file a fresh petition with proper prayer and pleadings.

¶89

Sd/- Sd/-

¶90

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶91

Anu

Aarti Katakwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aarti Katakwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Golu @ Ramkhilawan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Contractor Abhisekh Pandey S/o Rajesh Pandey aged about 29 Years Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramakant Maurya @ Romi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Himalaya Ravi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pankaj Kumar Bagde Vs State of Chhattisgarh