The Chhattisgarh High Court held that courts cannot direct the State to create new posts or modify service rules to provide promotional avenues as it falls under government policy. The plea of long-serving Laboratory Technicians was dismissed as legally unsustainable.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a writ petition filed by Laboratory Technicians who sought directions to the State Government to change service rules and provide them with promotional opportunities.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru clearly held that decisions like creating new posts, changing cadres, or amending recruitment and promotion rules are matters that fall only under the powers of the executive and legislature.
The Court made it clear that it cannot force the State to make such changes.
The case, Dr. Om Prakash Sharma & Others v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WPS No. 3214 of 2024), was filed by six Laboratory Technicians working in different government colleges in Chhattisgarh.
These employees are governed by the M.P. Class III Service Recruitment and Promotion (Mahavidhyala Shakha) Rules, 1974. The petitioners stated that they have been working on the same post for nearly 22 to 25 years without any chance of promotion.
One of them joined service in 1985 and was regularised in 1989. Despite having higher qualifications like Master’s degrees and even Ph.Ds, and even though the State considers them as “Teaching Posts” for retirement age and vacations, they were never given any promotional path under the 1974 Rules.
The petitioners argued that while other employees in the Higher Education Department receive promotions, Laboratory Technicians remain stuck on the same post throughout their careers, even after serving for more than 40 years.
They asked the Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the State to amend the 1974 Rules and create promotional avenues for them.
Their lawyers, Mr. Somkant Verma and Mr. Rishi Kant Mahobia, said that the State’s failure to act is unfair and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
They stressed that
“promotion is a normal incidence and condition of service, essential to maintain efficiency in public employment,”
and claimed that the government has a constitutional duty to provide reasonable promotion opportunities. They also pointed out that this situation harms even Laboratory Attendants, who can only move up when existing Technicians retire.
To strengthen their case, they referred to other states like West Bengal, Jharkhand, and Bihar, where Laboratory Technicians can be promoted to posts like Lecturer or Assistant Professor.
On the other hand, the State Government, represented by Deputy Government Advocate Mr. S.S. Baghel, opposed the plea. He argued that matters such as creating or removing posts, defining cadres, and deciding recruitment sources are “exclusively within the domain of the employer.”
He maintained that the Court has no authority to order the government to create posts or change service rules. The State also informed the Court that the petitioners have not suffered any financial hardship as they were given time-bound pay scale benefits in 2001, 2009, and 2019.
While analysing the matter, the High Court referred to settled legal principles and Supreme Court rulings, including Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others (2008) 10 SCC 1, which confirmed that creation and abolition of posts are executive functions.
The Bench also relied on Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and another v. Chander Hass and another (2008) 1 SCC 683, and quoted:
“The court cannot direct the creation of posts. Creation and sanction of posts is a prerogative of the executive or legislative authorities and the court cannot arrogate to itself this purely executive or legislative function, and direct creation of posts in any organisation.”
Applying these principles, the Court stated that the relief asked for by the petitioners was not legally maintainable and observed:
“This Court cannot compel the State to create or sanction posts, nor can it mandate amendments to the statutory recruitment rules to introduce new promotional hierarchies.”
On the issue of career stagnation, the Bench noted that the petitioners had already received financial benefits through higher pay scales and added:
“In service jurisprudence, financial progression through higher pay scales, even in the absence of promotion, is recognised as a legitimate method adopted by the employer to address stagnation.”
Regarding the argument based on practices in other states, the Court rejected it and said:
“The petitioners’ reliance on alleged promotional practices in other States such as West Bengal, Jharkhand, and Bihar cannot assist them, as inter-State variations in service structures do not confer enforceable rights, nor can they be used to direct this State to adopt similar structures.”
Finally, the High Court concluded that unless the existing rules are clearly unconstitutional, the judiciary cannot interfere in policy decisions.
Finding no such violation, the Court held that there was no valid reason to direct the State to amend the 1974 Rules or create promotional avenues for the petitioners. As a result, the writ petition was dismissed, and no order regarding costs was passed.
This judgment once again reinforces the legal position that courts cannot step into administrative policy matters, especially concerning creation of posts and amendment of service rules, which are solely within the powers of the government.
Click Here To Read More Reports on Maharashtra Local Body
