The Chhattisgarh High Court has delivered a significant verdict, reinforcing the boundaries of judicial and executive powers. On November 25, a Division Bench firmly held that the creation or sanction of government posts and the amendment of statutory service rules fall exclusively within the executive domain, and the judiciary cannot compel the government to perform these functions.
Court's Ruling on Executive Prerogative
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed a writ petition filed by a group of six laboratory technicians, including Dr. Om Prakash Sharma, who were seeking directions for the State to amend service rules and create promotional avenues for their post. The court relied on authoritative Supreme Court pronouncements, including the landmark Aravali Golf Club (2008) judgment, which consistently affirm that the power to create posts, structure cadres, and determine recruitment modes is the sole prerogative of the executive.
The Bench explicitly stated that the court cannot arrogate to itself this purely executive or legislative function. It emphasized that directing the creation of posts or mandating amendments to statutory recruitment rules involves complex economic and administrative considerations that are best left to the government.
The Petitioners' Long-Standing Grievance
The writ petition was filed by laboratory technicians working in various government colleges across Chhattisgarh. They were governed by the MP Class III Service Recruitment and Promotion (Mahavidhyala Shakha) Rules, 1974. The petitioners contended that these rules contained no promotional avenue for laboratory technicians, forcing them to work in a single-cadre post for periods ranging from 22 to 40 years.
They argued that this led to severe career stagnation, with employees being forced to retire from the same post they started in. To support their case, the petitioners highlighted that the State government had previously treated the laboratory technician post as a teaching post for superannuation and leave purposes. They also pointed out an inconsistency, noting that other Class III employees, such as assistant librarians, were promoted to Class II posts.
State's Defense and Final Outcome
Opposing the petition, Deputy Government Advocate S S Baghel appeared for the State. He submitted that the issue of structuring cadres and amending rules is an exclusive executive function. Baghel also argued that the petitioners had not suffered any financial loss, as the State had extended them the benefit of time-bound higher pay scales in 2001, 2009, and 2019 as a recognized method to address stagnation.
Ultimately, after considering both sides, the High Court dismissed the petition. This ruling underscores the legal principle that while courts can intervene in matters of rights violations, they cannot step into the shoes of the executive to dictate policy or administrative decisions related to service rules and post creation.
