Subsequent Omission Of "Two-Child" Eligibility Rule Does Not Invalidate Terminations Made While Rule Was In Force: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the subsequent omission of Rule 6(6) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, which disqualified a person having more than two living children from appointment, does not invalidate termination orders validly passed while the rule was in force. The Court observed that unless an amendment or omission is expressly or...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the subsequent omission of Rule 6(6) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, which disqualified a person having more than two living children from appointment, does not invalidate termination orders validly passed while the rule was in force. The Court observed that unless an amendment or omission is expressly or by necessary implication retrospective, actions taken under the rule before its omission remain valid.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal was hearing a writ appeal against the order of a Single Judge directing reinstatement of a Chowkidar employed in the contingency paid establishment of the District and Sessions Court. The respondent had been appointed in 2007 and, after joining service, a third child was born to him on 16.01.2011. His services were terminated on the ground that he had incurred the disqualification under Rule 6(6) of the Rules of 1961, which was then in force. The Single Judge subsequently set aside the termination and directed reinstatement with continuity of service, without back wages, after noting that Rule 6(6) had been omitted on 13.07.2017.
The appellants contended that the validity of the termination had to be tested with reference to the law prevailing on the date the order was passed and that the subsequent omission of Rule 6(6) could not nullify an order which was valid when made. The respondent argued that his third child had been given up for adoption and, therefore, he could not be treated as having three children.
The Court noted that it was undisputed that the respondent had two living children before entering service and that a third child was born on 16.01.2011. Since Rule 6(6) was in force when the competent authority terminated his services on 09.05.2017, the respondent had admittedly incurred the disqualification contemplated under the rule.
The Court held that the omission of Rule 6(6) on 13.07.2017 was prospective in nature and there was nothing in the notification indicating that actions already taken under the rule would stand obliterated or rendered void. It observed that accepting the respondent's contention would amount to giving retrospective effect to the omission in the absence of any legislative intent.
“Unless the amending provision expressly or by necessary implication provides retrospective operation, an omission or repeal of a statutory provision does not invalidate actions validly taken under the provision when it was in force,” the Court observed.
The Court further held that the subsequent act of giving the third child in adoption could not erase the disqualification already incurred under the statutory provision then in force.
Accordingly, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal, set aside the order of the Single Judge, and restored the order dated 09.05.2017 affirming the respondent's termination from service.
Case Title: The Registrar General, High Court of Chhattisgarh & Anr. v. Bheem Singh Dhruv & Ors. [WA No. 71 of 2025].