Chattisgarh High Court
Madhukar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 August, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1 / 14
2025:CGHC:40691-DB
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2739 of 2020
1 - Madhukar Patel S/o Shri Khageshwar Patel, Aged About 29 Years R/o
Village Gaurbihari, Post Hamirpur, Via- Tamnar, District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2 - Shruti Verma, D/o Shri Tula Ram Verma, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village
Tarashiv, Post Chichdi, Block Tilda, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Karnika Dwivedi D/o Shri K.K. Dwivedi, Aged About 28 Years R/o Q.No.
851, G.M. Complex, Brajrajnagar, District Jharsuguda, Odisha., District :
Jharsuguda *, Orissa
4 - Gunja Dhruv, D/o Shri Ruparam Dhruv, Aged About 26 Years R/o Q.No.
G-1, Irrigation Colony, Gangrel, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District :
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
5 - Chandra Prakash, S/o Shri Chain Das Sahu, Aged About 27 Years R/o C-
9, Shri Ram Colony, Ram Nagar, Ward No. 07, Motipur, District Rajnandgaon
Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Agriculture,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Shankar
Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Advocate
For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional
A.G.
VEDPRAKASH For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate
DEWANGAN
Digitally signed by
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Date: 2025.08.18
18:15:45 +0530
2 / 14
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
13/08/2025
1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the
educational qualification prescribed in schedule-III of sub-rule (ii) of
rule 8 of Chhattisgarh Water Resources Engineering and Geological
(Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2014 (in short ‘Rules of 2014’)
and prayed the following reliefs in their writ petition:-
“I. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
struck down and set aside the impugned “Scheduled-
III to the Sub Rule (II) of the Rule 8, Educational
Qualification” of the impugned Chhattisgarh Water
Resources Engineering and Geological (Gazetted)
Services Recruitment Rules, 2014 (Annexure P/1) for
being arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires, and unconstitutional
and further direct the respondent to insert M.Tech.
(Soil & Water Engineering) as educational
qualification.
AND
II. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
struck down and set aside the impugned Sub-clause
(iii) of the clause-2 of the advertisement dated
10.06.2020 for being arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires, and
unconstitutional.
OR
III. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondent State to act as the
recommendation of CGPSC and Agriculture, thereby
considering the Master Degree M.Tech (Soil & Water
Engineering) one of the educational qualification for
the post of Assistant Geo-Hydrologist.
3 / 14
IV. Any other interim relief deemed fit and just by this
Hon’ble court may also be granted in the interest of
justice.”
2. The petitioners who are having their B.Tech. (Agriculture Engineering)
and M.Tech. (Soil and Water Engineering) degree obtained from Indira
Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur. The respondent No.2/
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on
07.02.2020 and published on 12.02.2020 for recruitment on 05 vacant
posts of Assistant Geo Hydrologist in Water Resources Department,
State of Chhattisgarh. In the advertisement, the educational
qualification for the post of Assistant Geo Hydrologist was prescribed
as postgraduate degree in Geology from any recognized university.
The claim of the petitioners is that they have passed M.Tech. in Soil
and Water Engineering and it is equivalent to postgraduate degree in
Geology and thereby the prescribed qualification for the post of
Assistant Geo Hydrologist is discriminating the candidates including
the petitioners. Due to this essential qualification prescribed for the
post of Assistant Geo Hydrologist, the petitioners despite being
qualified and eligible candidates, debarred and refrained from
participating the selection process of public employment, therefore, the
impugned advertisement dated 12.02.2020 is illegal, ultra-vires and
unconstitutional. It is also the case of the petitioners that the Indira
Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur wrote a letter on 01.05.2020 to
the Water Resources Department stating therein that, the department
of Soil and Water Engineering is awarding postgraduate and Ph.D.
degrees, which are required degrees for the post of Assistant Geo
Hydrologist and be allowed the students of Soil and Water Engineering
to participate in the selection process of Assistant Geo Hydrologist, yet
4 / 14
no action has been taken on their recommendation and thus this writ
petition has been filed by the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners
are qualified and having their M.Tech. degree in Soil and Water
Engineering from Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur. The
M.Tech. degree in Soil and Water Engineering is equivalent to
postgraduate degree in Geology. Prescribing the master degree in
Geology from any recognized university for the post of Assistant Geo
Hydrologist as an essential qualification is arbitrary and discriminatory
for the petitioners, who have passed M.Tech. (Soil and Water
Engineering). Schedule-III of the sub-rule (ii) of rule 8 of the Rules of
2014 creating an obstacle and barring the petitioners to apply for the
post of Assistant Geo Hydrologist. The petitioners despite being
qualified and eligible candidates are debarred from participating in the
selection process of Assistant Geo Hydrologist. The Indira Gandhi
Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur has also considered that the students,
who are holding postgraduate degree in Soil and Water Engineering,
can be considered for the post of Assistant Geo Hydrologist and to
allow them in participating in selection process of Assistant Geo
Hydrologist under the advertisement dated 12.02.2020. He would also
submit that the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission is also in
view that the postgraduate degree in Soil and Water Engineering can
be included as minimum educational qualification for the post of
Assistant Geo Hydrologist and thus the minimum educational
qualification prescribed in schedule-III to sub-rule (ii) of rule 8 of the
Rules of 2014 are arbitrary, ultra-vires and unconstitutional and the
respondent authorities may be directed to include the M.Tech. (Soil
5 / 14
and Water Engineering) degree also as minimum educational
qualification for the post of Assistant Geo Hydrologist in the said
schedule-III of sub-rule (ii) rule 8 of Rules of 2014.
4. Per contra, responding the submissions made by learned counsel for
the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the State, in view of the
return submitted by them, would submit that postgraduate degree in
Geology from any recognized university is the prerequisite for
selection to the post of Assistant Geo Hydrologist, which deals with the
study of the Earth. The subject of Geology is useful part in the search
of coal, petroleum and minerals, etc. The importance of Geology has
also been recognized in the field of Civil Engineering projects, such as
water supply, construction of dams, reservoirs, tunnels, bridges, etc.
which requires specialization in the said subject to undertake the work
in the field. There is substantive difference in the Geology and Soil and
Water Engineering subjects. The M.Tech. degree in Soil and Water
Engineering is fit for selection in the field of agriculture, but not
endurable in the field of Water Resources Department, where the work
relates to reappraisal hydrological surveys, site selection and
supervision of groundwater exploratory drilling operations, conducting
hydrological tests, periodic groundwater resource assessment, to
undertake special studies like; feasibility of artificial recharge of water,
etc. The petitioners’ contention that the persons who have obtained
degree in Soil and Water Engineering can perform the work of
Assistant Geo Hydrologist is misconceived and irrational. He would
further submit that the employer/State have drawn a reasonable
classification in laying down the educational qualification for the
aforesaid posts, which is neither violative of articles 14 and 16 of the
6 / 14
Constitution of India, nor discriminatory in any manner. He would also
submit that a separate wing under the Water Resources Department
has been formed, which shows that the work of Geologist in the Water
Resources Department falls altogether under a different category, and
therefore, specialization in the said field is desirable and reasonable
and the students, who have done M.Tech. in Soil and Water
Engineering cannot be said to be a person holding expertise in the
said field. He would further submit that prescription of essential
educational qualification for a post is a matter of recruitment policy and
the State, as the employer, is entitled to prescribe the qualification as a
condition of eligibility. A particular qualification should or should not be
regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State to consider. The
petitioner has no vested rights to assert that State must as a mandate
include the qualification of M.Tech. in Soil and Water Engineering as
the qualification for the post of Assistant Geo Hydrologist in the rules
and to issue advertisement accordingly. It is also submitted by him that
the petitioners have approached to the authorities for amendment in
the rules regarding the educational qualification and after due
consideration, on 16.07.2021, it was said that there is no requirement
for amendment of the educational qualification prescribed under the
Rules of 2014 as claimed by the petitioners. The recruitment process
under the advertisement dated 12.02.2020 is completed and
appointment orders have been issued to the selected candidates on
21.10.2021, but they have not been arrayed in the writ petition as the
party respondent and thus the petition is suffered by non-joinder of
necessary parties. The petitioners have failed to show as to how and
in what aspects the educational qualification prescribed under the
7 / 14
Rules of 2014 is unconstitutional and there is no specific averment
with respect to the same. While prescribing the qualification for a post,
the State, as an employer may legitimately bears in mind several
features like; nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient
discharge of duties, functionality of a qualification and the contents of
the course of studies, etc. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law,
fall within the domain of administrative decision making and are
essential the policy matter, therefore, there is no merits in the writ
petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5. The respondent No.2/Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission would
also oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioners and would submit that the Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission being an examination conducting body, issued the
advertisement for recruitment on the post of Assistant Geo Hydrologist
under the Rules of 2014 and they have no authority to decide the
required educational qualification in order to determine the eligibility of
a candidate, as it is the sole prerogative of the State Government. The
petitioners have approached before the Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission on 04.05.2020 and their representation has been
forwarded to the State Government without expressing any opinion to
take the necessary steps on the said representation of the petitioners.
He would also submit that the selection process pursuant to the
advertisement dated 12.02.2020 is over and appointment orders have
been issued to the selected candidates.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available with the writ petition.
8 / 14
7. The core grievance of the petitioners is that, the M.Tech. degree in Soil
and Water Engineering is equivalent to postgraduate degree in
Geology and M.Tech. in Soil and Water Engineering should be
included as minimum educational qualification for the post of Assistant
Geo Hydrologist in schedule-III of sub-rule (ii) of rule 8 of the Rules of
2014. A literal meaning of Geology is the comprehensive study of
Earth including its composition, processes, structure and history along
with the evolution of life on earth. A Geologist investigates the earth’s
materials and its key area are plate tectonics, earthquakes, minerals
and the formation of the earth. The Soil and Water Engineering
focuses on a specialization within agricultural engineering, applies
engineering principles to manage and conserve soil and water
resources. The object of soil and water engineering is to enhance
productivity, control erosion and maintain water quality and supply. The
key areas of soil and water engineering are irrigation and drainage
system, soil erosion control, water resource management, watershed
management, hydrology modeling and designing equipment for
agricultural applications.
8. From comparative analysis of Geology and Soil and Water
Engineering would reveal that the Geology encompasses a broader
scope studying the entire earth and its processes, whereas the Soil
and Water Engineering focuses on a specific aspect of sustainable
management of Soil and Water Resources. The Geology and Soil-
Water Engineering are distinct field, though they often intersect.
9. Prescription of minimum educational qualification for a particular post
is a matter of recruitment policy and it is for the employer to prescribe
9 / 14
the minimum educational qualification bearing in mind several features
including the nature of job, the aptitudes requisite for efficient
discharge of the duties, the functionality of a qualification and contents
of the course of studies, etc. The advertised posts relate to subject
specialist and therefore, an specific educational qualification is
prescribed under the Rules of 2014 for the post of Assistant Geo
Hydrologist, and it is for the State to prescribe the minimum
qualification as a condition of eligibility. A particular qualification,
should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the
State to consider.
10. In the matter of “Zahoor Ahmad Rathar v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad“
2019 (2) SCC 404, it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, it is
not the role of the Court to find out the equivalence. It was pointed out
in the said decision that, the State, as a public employer, may well take
into account social perspective, that require creation of job
opportunities across the social structure. In para 26 and 27 of this
judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:-
“26. We are in respectful agreement with the
interpretation which has been placed on the judgment
in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita
(supra). The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the
provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it
would not be permissible to draw an inference that a
higher qualification necessarily presupposes the
acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The
prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of
recruitment policy. The state as the employer is
entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition
of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of
judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the
prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a
10 / 14qualification is not a matter which can be determined
in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a
particular qualification should or should not be
regarded as equivalent is a matter for the state, as the
recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in
Jyoti KK turned on a specific statutory rule under
which the holding of a higher qualification could
presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification.
The absence of such a rule in the present case makes
a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this
view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High
Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the
learned Single Judge and in coming to the 10 id at
page 177 conclusion that the appellants did not meet
the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the
decision of the Division Bench.
27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the
State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind
several features including the nature of the job, the
aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of
duties, the functionality of a qualification and the
content of the course of studies which leads up to the
acquisition of a qualification. The state is entrusted
with the authority to assess the needs of its public
services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law,
fall within the domain of administrative decision
making. The state as a public employer may well take
into account social perspectives that require the
creation of job opportunities across the societal
structure. All these are essentially matters of policy.
Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the
decision in Jyoti KK must be understood in the
context of a specific statutory rule under which the
holding of a higher qualification which presupposes
the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered
to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of
specific rule that the decision in Jyoti KK turned.”
11. In the case of “Maharashtra Public Service Commission v.
Sandeep Shriram Warade and others” 2019 (6) SCC 362, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 9 and 14 that:-
11 / 14
“9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a
post are for the employer to decide. The employer may
prescribe additional or desirable qualifications,
including any grant of preference. It is the employer
who is best suited to decide the requirements a
candidate must possess according to the needs of the
employer and the nature of work The court cannot lay
down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it
delve into the issue with regard to desirable
qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility
by an interpretive rewriting of the advertisement.
Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the
domain of judicial review. If the language of the
advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court
cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an
ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any
rules or law the matter has to go back to the
appointing authority after appropriate orders, to
proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the
Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of
the appointing authority to decide what is best for the
employer and interpret the conditions of the
advertisement contrary to the plain language of the
same.
14. The view taken by the Tribunal finds approval in
Deptt. Of Health & Family Welfare v. Anita Puri,
observing as follows:
7. Admittedly, in the advertisement which was
published calling for applications from the
candidates for the posts of Dental Officer it was
clearly stipulated that the minimum
qualification for the post is B.D.S. It was also
stipulated that preference should be given for
higher dental qualification. There is also nor
dispute that M.D.S. is a higher qualification
than the minimum qualification required for the
post and Respondent I was having that degree.
The question then arises is whether a person
holding a M.D.S. qualification is entitled to be
selected and appointed as of right by virtue of
the aforesaid advertisement conferring
12 / 14
preference for higher qualification? The answer
to the aforesaid question must be in the
negative. When an advertisement stipulates a
particular qualification as the minimum
qualification for the post and further stipulates
that preference should be given for higher
qualification, the only meaning it conveys is
that some additional weightage has to be given
to the higher qualified candidates. But by no
stretch of imagination it can be construed to
mean that a higher qualified person
automatically is entitled to be selected and
appointed. In this view of the matter, the High
Court in our considered opinion was wholly in
error in holding that a M.D.S. qualified person
like Respondent I was entitled to be selected
and appointed when the Government indicated
in the advertisement that higher qualification
person would get some preference. The said
conclusion of the High Court, therefore, is
wholly unsustainable and must be reversed”
12. Even otherwise, no material has been placed by the petitioners to
show that the M.Tech. degree possessed by them in Soil and Water
Engineering obtained from Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya,
Raipur is equivalent to the postgraduate degree in Geology. The
advertisement issued by the respondent No.2 requiring the
postgraduate degree in Geology for the post of Assistant Geo
Hydrologist is based upon the Rules of 2014 for the posts in question.
The word “equivalent” is not mentioned either in the advertisement or
in the Rules of 2014.
13. We may also take note of the fact that, the selection process with
respect to the advertisement dated 12.02.2020 for recruitment on the
post of Assistant Geo Hydrologist is over and appointment orders have
already been issued to the selected candidates way back on
13 / 14
21.10.2021.
14. It is settled in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of “R.N. Goyal v. Ashwani Kumar Gupta and Others“, 2004 (11)
SCC 753, that the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution
of India are for general good, but cause hardship to an individual, the
same cannot be a ground for striking down the Rules. The Rules are
valid and do not suffer from any vice of unreasonableness.
15. The Rules of 2014 have been enacted by the State Government in
exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India. The Rules of 2014, which have been framed by
the State Government, cannot be said to be without legislative
competence of the State. The State is empowered under Article 309 of
the Constitution of India to frame rules with regard to the service
conditions of its employees. The State, in its wisdom, has put the
required minimum educational qualification for the post of Assistant
Geo Hydrologist as a master degree in Geology, which cannot be said
to be arbitrary or without legislative competence or even discriminatory
to other degrees. It is well settled that rules may be declared ultra vires
if it is made beyond the legislative competence to the Constitution of
India or manifestly arbitrary. In the present case, we are of the opinion
that the State can fix the eligibility criteria and minimum qualification
for the post of Assistant Geo Hydrologist, and make rules relating to
recruitment and conditions of service of the Chhattisgarh Water
Resources Engineering and Geological (Gazetted) Services which has
correctly framed in the name of “Chhattisgarh Water Resources
Engineering and Geological (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules,
14 / 14
2014″. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to declare that the minimum
educational qualification fixed in Schedule-III of sub-rule (II) of Rule 8
of the Rules of 2014 for the post of Assistant Geo Hydrologist, i.e. “a
master degree in Geology from any recognized University,” is not ultra
vires and it is within the legislative competence of the State. There is
no illegality in the Rules of 2014 and fixing the minimum qualification
of a master’s degree in Geology for the post of Assistant Geo
Hydrologist, in the Water Resources Department, State of
Chhattisgarh. The same are just and proper, warranting no
interference of this court.
16. In the light of aforesaid, we accordingly find no merit in the petition
filed by the petitioners and the writ petition is liable to be and hereby
dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved