Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses Jail Driver's Plea to Strike Down Rules That Deny Promotion Avenue
The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur held that no constitutional infirmity arises from the Chhattisgarh Jail Non-Gazetted Services Rules, 2022 merely because they do not provide a promotional channel for Drivers, while teachers and warders in the same Class-III cadre enjoy one.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, on 16 July 2026 dismissed a writ petition filed by Sunil Kumar Jangade, a Driver serving in the Jail Department at Sub Jail, Mungeli. Jangade had approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that the Chhattisgarh Jail Non-Gazetted (Class-III Ministerial and Non-Ministerial) Services Recruitment Rules, 2022 are unconstitutional to the extent they provide no promotional avenue for the cadre of Drivers, unlike Teacher staff, Warders, and Ministerial staff who can compete for promotion to Assistant Jail Superintendent. The bench held that the absence of a promotional channel for one cadre does not, by itself, make statutory service rules arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution.
The Dispute Before the Court
Jangade was appointed as a Vehicle Driver on 27 May 2008 and joined duty on 12 June 2008. By the time the petition came up for hearing, he had rendered over sixteen years of service in the Jail Department without any promotion. His service conditions were initially governed by the Chhattisgarh Class-III (Ministerial and Non-Ministerial) Jail Services Recruitment Rules, 1974. The State Government subsequently replaced those with the Rules of 2022, framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.
Under Schedule-II, Part-A of the Rules of 2022, fifty per cent of the posts of Assistant Jail Superintendent (Pay Matrix Level-6) are to be filled by promotion through a competitive examination. Within that promotional quota, forty per cent is reserved for Warder staff, five per cent for Ministerial staff, and five per cent for Teacher staff. No quota has been earmarked for Drivers. The petitioner argued that because Drivers, like Teachers, belong to the Class-III Non-Ministerial cadre, their complete exclusion from any promotional avenue is irrational and constitutionally impermissible.
Jangade also pointed to the State of Madhya Pradesh, where corresponding Jail Service Rules had been amended to extend promotional opportunities to Class-III Ministerial and Non-Ministerial employees, including Drivers, for appointment to the post of Assistant Jail Superintendent. He contended that the absence of a comparable provision in Chhattisgarh lacked any reasonable basis.
The Constitutional Arguments
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, framed the challenge on two constitutional grounds. First, that the classification in the Rules of 2022 — granting promotional avenues to some Class-III non-ministerial employees while denying them entirely to Drivers — fails the twin test under Article 14 of intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the object of the Rules. He relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Food Corporation of India & Others v. Parashotam Das Bansal & Others, (2008) 5 SCC 100, for the proposition that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality and that different treatment of similarly situated employees requires a reasonable basis.
Second, he argued that lifelong stagnation without any prospect of advancement adversely affects the dignity and legitimate service expectations of Drivers and thereby infringes Article 21. He also cited State of Tripura & Others v. K.K. Roy, (2004) 9 SCC 65, for the position that while there is no fundamental right to promotion, an employee has a right to fair and equal consideration for promotion under applicable service rules.
The petitioner was careful to clarify the scope of his grievance: he did not claim promotion as a right, but sought either a declaration of unconstitutionality or a direction to the State to amend the Rules to include Drivers within the promotional channel for Assistant Jail Superintendent or any other appropriate post.
The State, represented by Deputy Advocate General Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, resisted the petition on multiple grounds. The State argued that service rules are a matter of policy and the legislature has wide latitude in determining cadre structure, promotional hierarchy and method of recruitment under Article 309. The mere absence of a promotional avenue does not render statutory rules unconstitutional. The State also relied on State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni, (1981) 4 SCC 130, which holds that mere chances of promotion are not conditions of service and that reduction or abolition of promotional chances does not alter service conditions.
On the Madhya Pradesh comparison, the State submitted that one State's policy decisions cannot be the basis for challenging the validity of another State's statutory rules. Each State is competent to frame its own service rules according to its administrative requirements. The State further pointed out that the petitioner had already received the benefit of the First Time Pay Scale on completing ten years of qualifying service — a conscious policy measure to address financial stagnation in cadres with limited promotional avenues.
How the Bench Reasoned
The Division Bench agreed with the State on every material point. It reaffirmed that framing service rules, determining promotional hierarchy, creating or abolishing promotional posts and prescribing qualifications are matters of policy within the exclusive domain of the rule-making authority. The scope of judicial review over such decisions is limited to instances of manifest arbitrariness, discrimination, violation of constitutional provisions, or excess of legislative competence. None of those grounds was established here.
On the right to promotion, the bench was unequivocal: “no Government servant possesses a fundamental or vested right to promotion.” The right recognised in law is only a right to be considered for promotion where the applicable rules provide a promotional channel. The Constitution does not require that every cadre have promotional avenues or that promotional posts be created for every category of employees.
The bench distinguished the petitioner's reliance on Food Corporation of India. In that case, the Supreme Court addressed arbitrary discrimination among employees who were otherwise similarly situated in the matter of service benefits. In the present case, the petitioner failed to establish that Drivers and Teachers, Warders, or Ministerial staff form one homogeneous class for the purpose of promotion. The nature of duties, responsibilities, qualifications, and functional requirements differ between these cadres, and the employer is competent to classify them differently for recruitment and promotion provided the classification rests on administrative exigencies.
The bench also distinguished K.K. Roy. The Supreme Court in that case recognised a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with applicable rules. It did not hold that every cadre must have a promotional avenue or that courts can direct the State to create one. Since the Rules of 2022 themselves provide no promotional channel for Drivers, the petitioner could not invoke K.K. Roy to seek judicial creation of one.
On the Madhya Pradesh argument, the bench firmly rejected the comparison. Comparative legislation or policy prevailing in another State is not a basis for declaring another State's statutory rules unconstitutional. Each State Government frames rules according to its own administrative requirements and cadre structure.
The bench also addressed Article 21. It held that the absence of a promotional avenue does not infringe the right to life or personal liberty. Service conditions are governed by statutory rules and, unless those rules are shown to be arbitrary or unconstitutional, no infringement of Article 21 arises from the mere fact of promotional stagnation.
The court took note of the Time Pay Scale benefit. While acknowledging that it is not a substitute for promotion, the bench observed that the State had consciously framed a policy to provide financial progression to employees in cadres with limited or no promotional avenues, and the petitioner had already availed the First Time Pay Scale. This demonstrated that the State had not been indifferent to the position of such employees.
On the relief sought, the bench was categorical that a direction to amend the Rules of 2022 to create a promotional channel for Drivers would amount to the court legislating or rewriting statutory rules — impermissible under Article 226. Courts cannot compel a rule-making authority to adopt a particular policy merely because another policy may be more beneficial to a class of employees.
Order
The Division Bench dismissed WPS No. 4313 of 2024 as devoid of merit. No order as to costs was made. The bench held that the petitioner failed to establish that the Rules of 2022, to the extent they do not provide a promotional avenue for the cadre of Drivers, are arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India.