Dismissed¶35

Sonal Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jan 2026WPS/418/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh Rural Engineering (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules 2014; Rule 6; Schedule II; Rule 15; Schedule IV; Rules 14 & 15; ten years' experience as Sub-Engineer for promotion to Assistant Engineer; arbitrariness of qualification prescription; employer-State prerogative; Article 226 writ petition; Basant Majhi v. State of Chhattisgarh, Writ Petition (C) No.2143 of 2018, order dated 11.06.2024, followed; Puneet Sharma (SC) referred; writ petition dismissed in terms of earlier Co-ordinate Bench order.

What did the court decide?

The facts and issue involved in this writ petition are identical to Writ Petition (C) No.2143 of 2018, and the Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than the one taken therein. ¶34

Sonal Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Rural Engineering (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2014 and Schedule II attached thereto, and Rule 15 and Schedule IV of the said Rules, are constitutionally valid. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The facts and issue involved in this writ petition are identical to Writ Petition (C) No.2143 of 2018, and the Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than the one taken therein.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The present writ petition is dismissed in terms of the order dated 11.06.2024 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.2143 of 2018 {Basant Majhi & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others}.

¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (DB: Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice, author, and Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge), order dated 06.01.2026 in WPS No. 418 of 2023 (Sonal Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh & others): The petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Rural Engineering (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2014 and Schedule II attached thereto, and also Rule 15 and Schedule IV of the said Rules. Learned counsel pointed out that in an identical matter a Co-ordinate Bench had dismissed Writ Petition (C) No.2143 of 2018 {Basant Majhi & others v. State of Chhattisgarh & others} and connected matters vide order dated 11.06.2024, wherein paras 36-37 held that the prescription of ten years' experience on the post of Sub-Engineer for the next higher post of Assistant Engineer (Serial No.5 of Schedule-II drawn under Rule 6 and Serial No.4 of Schedule-IV drawn under Rules 14 & 15 of the Rules of 2014) cannot be held arbitrary, being the employer-State's prerogative in light of the law in Puneet Sharma (supra), and declared those provisions constitutionally valid. Finding the facts and issue identical, this Court deemed it appropriate not to take a view other than the one taken in Writ Petition (C) No.2143 of 2018 and dismissed the present writ petition in terms of the order dated 11.06.2024.

2026:CGHC:1089-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 418 of 2023

¶6

Sonal Jain W/o Ashvin Jain Aged About 38 Years R/o C-129, Himalaya Heights, Raigarh, Tehsil Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Secretary Department of General Administration, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Chairman, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar (Chhattisgarh), Pin – 492002.

¶12

4 - Engineer In Chief Vikas Ayukt Karyalay, Rural Engineering Services, Vikas Bhawan, Sector-19, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

ASHUTOSH MISHRA

¶15

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.01.08 17:43:40 +0530

¶17

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶22

06.01.2026

¶23

1. Heard Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State and Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel for Respondent No.3.

¶24

2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 6 of Chhattisgarh Rural Engineering (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2014 and Schedule II attached thereto and also Rule 15 and Schedule IV of the said Rules.

¶25

3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that in an identical matter, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had dismissed Writ Petition (C ) No.2143 of 2018 {Basant Majhi & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others} & other connected matters vide order dated 11.06.2024 observing as follows :

¶26

“36. Thus, prescription of experience of ten years on

¶27

the post of Sub-Engineer for the next higher post of

¶28

¶29

Assistant Engineer as such cannot be held to be arbitrary as it is for the State Government to prescribe the qualification for the post of Assistant Engineer and which is the prerogative of employer/State bearing in mind the several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification etc., in light of the aforesaid principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Puneet Sharma (supra).

¶30

37. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that Serial No.5 of Schedule-II drawn under Rule 6 and Serial No.4 of Schedule-IV drawn under Rules 14 & 15 of the Rules of 2014 are constitutionally valid and do not suffer any vice of arbitrariness, illegality or discriminatory. Challenge made to the said Rule is hereby declined. Consequently, all the writ petitions deserves to be and are accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). ”

¶31

They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of Writ Petition ( C) No.2143 of 2018, this writ petition may also be dismissed in the same terms.

¶32

4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel

¶33

¶34

for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to Writ Petition ( C) No.2143 of 2018 , this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in Writ Petition ( C) No.2143 of 2018 .

¶35

5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed in terms of the order dated 11.06.2024 passed in Writ Petition (C ) No.2143 of 2018 {Basant Majhi & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others} .

¶36

Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶37

ashu

Sonal Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonal Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkhilawan Sahu Vs Executive Engineer Constru. and Anr.

Saurabh Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Husn Ghritlahre Alias Dadu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lakshman Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rahul Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh