Chhattisgarh high court declares exclusion of engineering graduates from sub engineer posts as arbitrary and discriminatory
The court stated that Rule 8 (II) Column (5) of Schedule-III, Serial No. 1, of the Chhattisgarh Public Health Engineering Department (Non-Gazetted) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2016, is "illegal and without jurisdiction." Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru delivered a common order on two writ petitions filed by over two dozen individuals.
The petitioners, holding graduate degrees in engineering, sought to participate in the direct recruitment examination for Sub-Engineer (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) posts.
The examination was scheduled for 27 April 2025, following an advertisement issued on 7 March 2025. The petitioners argued that the 2016 rules, which prescribed a three-year diploma as the only educational qualification for direct recruitment to Sub-Engineer posts, were discriminatory.
They pointed out that for promotional quotas (5 per cent), both diploma and degree holders were eligible. They further highlighted that other state departments, such as the Public Works Department and CSPDCL, permitted both diploma and degree holders to apply for Sub-Engineer positions.
The petitioners' counsels, Ajay Shrivastava, G P Mathur, and Pratibha Sahu, contended that an engineering degree is a higher qualification than a diploma, and thus, degree holders should not be barred from applying.
They cited the Supreme Court's judgement in the Puneet Sharma & Others v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & Another case, which directed states to allow degree holders to participate in recruitment processes.
The State, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, argued that the 2016 rules maintained the same qualification criteria as the earlier 1979 and 2012 rules. The State also submitted that the 5% promotion quota for in-service candidates, which includes diploma and degree holders, was a separate provision for existing employees who may have acquired higher qualifications during their service. The Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (CGPEB), the recruiting agency, stated that it acts based on existing rules and departmental requisitions.
The intervenors supported the State's contentions.
The High Court observed that excluding degree holders, who possess superior knowledge and technical skills, was unreasonable and counterproductive to recruiting competent individuals. The court noted that this restriction undermined principles of fairness and equal opportunity, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 'The exclusion of degree holders, who possess the necessary knowledge and technical skills, from eligibility for the post is arbitrary, unreasonable, and counterproductive to the goal of recruiting competent individuals.
It violates the principles of fairness, equal opportunity, and the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. Notably, other state departments like Public Works and CSPDCL allow both Diploma and Degree holders for similar posts, making the exclusion in the Public Health and Engineering Department discriminatory,' the court stated.
An interim order was issued on 25 March 2025, allowing degree holders to provisionally apply for the posts, subject to the final outcome of the petitions. The court clarified that this order would apply to all similarly situated candidates. Following the declaration of the rule as "ultra vires," the High Court directed the respondent authorities to proceed with the selection process, ensuring that engineering degree holders are allowed to participate, provided they meet other prescribed criteria in the advertisement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
14 minutes ago
- Mint
15th Finance Commission's tax share rejig boosts Bihar, Maharashtra; Karnataka hit
New Delhi: Seven states have seen their share of the divisible tax pool shrink, while 21 have gained under the 15th Finance Commission's 2021–26 award compared with the previous allocation, finance ministry data showed. Karnataka faced one of the sharpest cuts, with its share dropping from 4.713% in the 14th Finance Commission (2015-20) to 3.647%. The divisible pool is that portion of gross tax revenue that is distributed between the Centre and the states. The divisible pool consists of all taxes, except surcharges and cess levied for specific purpose, net of collection charges. Kerala's allocation fell from 2.5% to 1.925%, and Andhra Pradesh's from 4.305% to 4.047%. Assam, Odisha, Telangana, and the country's most populous state Uttar Pradesh also saw reductions. However, Uttar Pradesh's dip, from 17.959% to 17.939%, was marginal. In contrast, 21 states gained. Bihar's share rose from 9.665% to 10.058%, Maharashtra's from 5.521% to 6.317%, Rajasthan's from 5.495% to 6.026%, and West Bengal's from 7.324% to 7.523%. Smaller states such as Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tripura, also recorded the largest proportional increases. To be sure, the Finance Commission determines each state's share of tax devolution by evaluating factors such as population, income, area and demographic performance, assigning specific weights to these criteria to calculate the final percentage allocation. 'It is the prerogative of the Finance Commission to decide the criteria for recommending inter se tax shares from overall tax devolution for each State. This power of the Commission is given in Article 280(3)(a) of the Constitution of India,' the ministry of finance recently said in a written response to a question in the Rajya Sabha. 'Depending upon the parameters chosen by the Finance Commission and the weightages assigned, the percentage share of the taxes received by the states varies from one Finance Commission period to another,' it added. Meanwhile, the Arvind Panagariya-led 16th Finance Commission is currently reviewing detailed submissions from states and central ministries to finalize its 2026–31 recommendations by 31 October, a verdict that will shape the fiscal landscape for the next five years (2027-31), deciding which states enjoy greater spending room and which must operate under tighter constraints. The 16th Finance Commission, like its predecessors, is tasked with recommending how central tax revenues should be divided between the Centre and the states (vertical devolution), and how that share should be distributed among states (horizontal devolution). It will also assess funding needs for disaster management and for strengthening local governments. Speaking to Mint, in an interview last month, Manoj Panda, a member of the 16th Finance Commission, said that the commission has just completed several rounds of state visits, and may have to go "a bit beyond" the standard parameters while computing the share of the country's revenue kitty between states and the Centre. He added that the states' tax-to-GSDP (gross state domestic product) ratios have remained stuck at 6-7% levels and that future tax collections will primarily hinge on GSDP growth. To be sure, there is a growing demand from wealthier Indian states, typically bunched around the western and southern regions, to be given a bigger share of the revenue.
New Indian Express
38 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
SC calls Bihar SIR ‘voter-friendly'; notes expansion of acceptable ID documents from seven to 11
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that the electoral rolls cannot be static, noting that a one-time exercise is only for the preparation of the list, but there has to be a revision exercise as well. The observation came while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, senior lawyer for one of the petitioners, told the top court that the ECI had surprisingly invented a new document requirement for 8 crore voters. "Even if I'm in jail, I can't be removed from the roll without due process. Here, the 65 lakh removed voters were not disqualified on any such grounds. The ECI has carried out mass exclusions. Who gave the ECI authority to do this?" he argued. After hearing these submissions, a bench headed by Justice Surya Kant said, "But the electoral list cannot remain static. A one-time exercise is only for preparing the original list and it must be revised." Sankaranarayanan further added that the ECI has begun the process in West Bengal too, without any consultation. "I appear for the State and for main petitioner ADR. Four constitutional provisions on electoral rolls haven't been addressed yet. The right to be on the roll is sacrosanct," he contended. "The Constitution guarantees my right to be registered as a voter," he added. To this, the apex court observed that the expansion of the number of documents by the ECI is a "voter-friendly" and not "anti-voter" exercise. In response, the apex court said that the ECI's decision to permit 11 documents as proof of identity for the latest SIR in Bihar, compared to only seven documents in the summary revision of electoral rolls carried out in Jharkhand, showed that the process was 'in fact voter-friendly.' 'They are expanding the number of documents of identity. We understand your exclusionary argument may be with regard to Aadhaar, but the expansion of documents from what was followed in a summary revision to an intensive revision is, in fact, voter-friendly and not exclusionary. It gives voters more options. From seven, there are now 11 documents,' the bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, observed.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Citizen-State relations and the burden of document raj
For over a month now, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has ensnared the bulk of Bihar's voting population in a maze of paperwork, thanks to its Special Intensive Review (SIR) of the voter rolls. In the process, widely accepted documents — Aadhaar, ration card and the voter card itself — have been declared suspect, despite the Supreme Court's intervention. Through executive fiat, ECI has created a new, arbitrary document hierarchy, declaring 11 specific documents — some of which even the most privileged Indians struggle to procure — as appropriate for determining citizenship. Now, as the process moves to the question of deletions from the voter rolls and the very real threat of disenfranchisement, ECI is obdurately hiding behind its paperwork, refusing public access to the list of deleted names. This tyranny of paper is also at the centre of another controversy. The enduring image of Rahul Gandhi's recent press conference is the seven-foot-high stack of paper — the physical electoral rolls — that the Congress team trawled through to identify discrepancies. The Indian bureaucracy's obsession with paper (files, orders, documents) is well known. Anthropologist Mathew Hull traces this to the colonial bureaucracy's distrust of local Indian functionaries, which manifested itself in kaghaz raj or 'documentary rule'. (HT Photo) In different ways, both episodes reveal one of the most pernicious aspects of the exercise of State power in India — the use of documents to mediate citizen-State relations and their role in feeding the State's obsession with ordering citizens into administrative categories of 'eligible' and 'ineligible'. Bureaucratic norms cohere around the idea that 'good governance' is about weeding out the 'ineligible'. At one level, this is a legitimate governance impulse. After all, who will disagree with the need to ensure that all citizens access their rights, particularly voting rights, and that no 'ineligible' person misuses the system? However, the practices this unleashes often lead to the kind of documentation chaos as we are witnessing in Bihar. Worse, it opens the window for co-opting bureaucratic practices into legitimising exclusionary political projects. In hiding behind its mounds of paper, obdurately refusing to make its processes and documents transparent to the public, ECI has demonstrated how effectively the State can weaponise paper even in pursuit of ostensibly legitimate goals. Proving eligibility via documents is a unique burden that the Indian State places on its citizens. After Partition, governments in India and Pakistan adopted the practice of adjudicating citizenship claims by evaluating documents such as passports and, later, ration/voter cards that claimants possessed to determine their authenticity as citizens. This, as political scientist Niraja Jayal has argued, inverted the standard relationship between citizenship and documents. In most contexts, the possession of citizenship is the means to acquire identity documents such as passports. In the Indian case, documents became the means for determining citizenship. This penchant for relying on documents to mediate citizenship soon extended to routine administrative tasks. The Indian bureaucracy's obsession with paper (files, orders, documents) is well known. Anthropologist Mathew Hull traces this to the colonial bureaucracy's distrust of local Indian functionaries, which manifested itself in kaghaz raj or 'documentary rule'. Only through a connection with paper, Hull argues, could an action be construed as an action. Contemporary Indian bureaucracy adopted this practice and extended this culture of distrust to how it deals both with itself and with the public at large. In dealing with the public, documents — ration cards, BPL cards, job cards, Aadhaar cards, voter cards — came to play the role of gatekeepers. For citizens, they are the primary means to make themselves visible to the State and place claims. For the State, they are the means through which it seeks to 'see' society, categorising the population into administratively legible segments that become the basis for administrative action. The culture of distrust that underpins this allowed for an intriguing twist. The State took it upon itself to categorise the population as 'eligible' and 'ineligible'; after all, corruption enables the 'ineligible' beneficiary to access the State. But to achieve this goal, the bureaucracy appropriated the power to verify its own documents, casting suspicion both on its documents and, rather conveniently, on those in possession of these documents. This administrative suspicion can easily be weaponised and placed in service of political projects, as we are now witnessing in Bihar. Words like 'verification', 'authentication', 'deletion' and 'doubtful' are routinely deployed in administrative parlance. The citizen is a suspicious actor, in constant need of verification. It is this bureaucratic impulse that has allowed the ECI, with absolutely no irony, to claim the voter card, distributed by its own machinery, to be inaccurate, leaving it to the Supreme Court judges to remind the ECI of the principle of 'presumption of correctness'. Crucially, it is precisely this suspicion that can become a convenient weapon in the politics of exclusion. Political narratives of 'infiltrators' and outsiders find legitimacy precisely because the State regularly reminds us of how suspiciously it views its documents, allowing itself the luxury of authenticating documents at will. It should be no surprise that the spectre of NRC is writ large over the SIR as well. As the SIR and electoral roll controversy unfolds, the risk of mass disenfranchisement (6.5 million deletions in the draft list), procedural arbitrariness, the constitutional overreach of ECI, and its sheer incompetence are at the centre of the ongoing political and legal challenge. The debate, however, is missing a deeper interrogation into the tyranny of paper and the culture of distrust it has entrenched that makes even our institutions capable of undermining democracy and citizens' rights. The struggle to protect democratic freedoms must extend to interrogating and indeed challenging the culture of kaghaz raj within the State that makes critical independent public institutions vulnerable. Yamini Aiyar is senior visiting fellow, Brown University. The views expressed are personal.
