Absence Of Promotional Avenues Does Not Render Service Rules Unconstitutional; No Right To Promotion: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the mere absence of promotional avenues in a service cadre does not render statutory service rules unconstitutional, reiterating that no government servant possesses a fundamental or vested right to promotion. The Court observed that while an employee has a right to be considered for promotion where the applicable service rules provide a...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the mere absence of promotional avenues in a service cadre does not render statutory service rules unconstitutional, reiterating that no government servant possesses a fundamental or vested right to promotion. The Court observed that while an employee has a right to be considered for promotion where the applicable service rules provide a promotional channel, the Constitution does not mandate that every cadre must necessarily have promotional opportunities.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal was hearing a writ petition filed by a Driver in the Chhattisgarh Jail Department challenging the constitutional validity of the Chhattisgarh Jail Non-Gazetted (Class-III Ministerial and Non-Ministerial) Services Recruitment Rules, 2022. The petitioner contended that although Drivers formed part of the Class-III non-ministerial cadre, the Rules failed to provide any promotional avenue for them, unlike Warders, Ministerial Staff and Teachers, thereby resulting in career stagnation and violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. He also relied upon the corresponding service rules in Madhya Pradesh, where Drivers were provided promotional opportunities.
Rejecting the challenge, the Court held that framing service rules, prescribing qualifications, determining methods of recruitment, creating promotional channels and restructuring cadres are matters of policy lying within the exclusive domain of the rule-making authority. It observed that judicial review over such policy decisions is limited and that courts cannot interfere merely because another policy may appear more beneficial. The Bench further held that the absence of a promotional avenue, by itself, cannot invalidate statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.
The Court noted that mere chances of promotion are not conditions of service and that reduction or abolition of promotional opportunities does not amount to alteration of service conditions. It observed:
“… merely because the cadre of Drivers does not have a promotional avenue under the Rules of 2022 cannot, by itself, render the Rules unconstitutional.”
The Bench further rejected the contention that Drivers and Teachers constituted a homogeneous class merely because both belonged to the Class-III non-ministerial cadre. It held that different cadres may legitimately be treated differently depending upon their duties, qualifications, responsibilities and administrative requirements. The Court also observed that promotional policies adopted by another State could not furnish a ground to invalidate the statutory rules framed by the State of Chhattisgarh.
Holding that the petitioner had failed to establish any violation of Articles 14 or 21 or demonstrate that the Rules were manifestly arbitrary or discriminatory, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Jangade v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [W.P.(S) No. 4313 of 2024]