The Chhattisgarh High Court has delivered a significant verdict, dismissing a writ petition filed by a group of laboratory technicians who were seeking court directives for the creation of promotional avenues within their service rules.
Court Upholds Executive Prerogative in Service Rules
On November 25, a bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru firmly held that the power to create or sanction posts and to amend statutory service rules lies exclusively within the domain of the executive branch. The court stated that it cannot compel the government to perform these functions.
The judgment relied on established Supreme Court pronouncements, which have consistently affirmed that structuring cadres, creating posts, and determining recruitment modes are the prerogative of the executive. The High Court explicitly stated that it cannot assume this purely executive or legislative function to direct the creation of posts or mandate amendments to statutory recruitment rules.
In its reasoning, the bench cited the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in the Aravali Golf Club case (2008), which clearly ruled that courts cannot arrogate the power of creating or sanctioning posts, as such decisions involve complex economic and administrative considerations.
The Petitioners' Long-Standing Grievance
The writ petition was filed by six laboratory technicians, including Dr. Om Prakash Sharma, who are employed in various government colleges across Chhattisgarh. Their central argument was that the MP Class III Service Recruitment and Promotion (Mahavidhyala Shakha) Rules, 1974, which govern their employment, contain no provision for career progression.
The petitioners contended that they have been working in a single-cadre post for periods ranging from 22 to 40 years, facing severe career stagnation and being forced to retire from the same position they started in. They sought a judicial direction for an amendment to the 1974 Rules to provide them with a legitimate promotional channel.
To strengthen their case, the technicians highlighted that the State government had previously treated the laboratory technician post as a teaching post for purposes like superannuation (retirement at 60 years) and leave. They also pointed out an inconsistency, noting that other Class III employees, such as assistant librarians, do receive promotions to Class II posts, contradicting the State's stand that no such promotion from Class III to Class II is possible.
State's Defense and Court's Final Ruling
Opposing the petition, Deputy Government Advocate S S Baghel argued that the structuring of cadres and amendment of rules is an exclusive executive function. He also submitted that the petitioners had not suffered any financial loss, as the State had extended to them the benefit of time-bound higher pay scales in 2001, 2009, and 2019—a recognized method to address stagnation without vertical promotion.
The High Court accepted the state's arguments. It noted that the petitioners had indeed received the benefit of financial progression through the time-bound pay scales. The court ruled that the mere absence of a promotional avenue does not confer a legal right to seek judicial intervention to compel the State to modify its service rules.
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with the court holding that there was no legal justification to issue any direction to the State government to amend the 1974 Rules. This verdict underscores the clear separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive in administrative matters.
