)w^s3gBg?BesK??g^ li|||M(<||j)ti Ei;falii!u?ds1 H3iJiilffili"iS:ll;;liil emCSI £ S sliA'%'S ^_3. ;1^^; -°H •'& s y- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.(s) N0. a>0&C /2010 Dr. (Mrs.) Mrinalini Karmokar, W/o- Dr. A.K.Karmoker, Aged about 46 years, R/o- LIG-46, Tilak Nagar, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.). PETITIONER VERSUS 33}3^^8> R R. Mo.. Preas^M^ShR^ 1. State ofChhattisgarh, 6'itsd...... ~"~ Through-Secretary, Departmentof Education, _ V-^'^d'-t-*' D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Commissioner, Higher Education Directorate, Govt. Since College Campus, Raipur, (C.(3^ RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA »isss XI-HC—78 TSf -41'41d<4, fftily'l'o, rqdiyy ^••^•^•••so"^//"fi-^200 S^T'TW? ('^tg^T) ^ iWV ^ W ^STT 37T??T ^T^ WITWWCT3:II^I ^i^^^ 'HFF^ff ^' i^5t ir»(^.i< '^sffgHStCTI Diivision Bench: Hon. Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon. Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. 19-10-2010:- Common order has been Neeta Shrivastava and others including this petition. Signed and dated. oassed in WPfS) No.3384/2010 (Dr. fs. State of Chhattisgarh & another) ^Afr, Srf4. esa^^ Juc6 Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ige ^ ^ 1 /^- HIGHJ^OURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS: Writ Petition (S) No.3384 of 2010 Dr. Neeta Shrivastava and others RESPONDENTS: Versus State of Chhattisgarh and another And other connected matters ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR, J J) <2Ut^-- Sd/- JUDGE 1&/10/2010 Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge POSTFQR ORDER ON IS -10-2010 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge d HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.3384 of 2010 PETITIONERS: Dr. Neeta Shrivastava, wife of Dr. Sushil Shrivastava, aged about 48 years, resident of Agya Nagar, Near Park, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Dr. Shibani Saha, wife of Shri P.C. Saha, aged about 35 years, resident of F-103, Green Velley, Mateshree Parisar, Near Dhan Mandi, Torwa, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Smt. Usha Rathore, wife of Shri Shashi Kant Rathore, aged about 34 years, resident of B-l 17, Rama Green City, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Smt. Pranita Patel, wife of Shri Somdutta Patel, aged about 30 years, resident of In front of Qtr. No.4/35, Tulsi Awas, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Smt. Suman Sharma, D/o Shri B.P. Sharma, aged about 29 years, resident of Kesdar 42, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Dr. Anjana Sharma, D/o Shri R.K. Dubey, aged about 29 years, resident of Sanskar Bhawan, In front of Lalit Petrol Pump, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Higher Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Commissioner, Department of Higher Education, Government Science College Campus, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Writ Petition (S) No.3211 of 2010 PETITIONER: Brajesh Kumar Pandey, Son of Shri Shiv Narayan Pandey, aged about 39 years, R/o Sindhi ^ .^J 'y' Colony, Sahu Sadan Balod, Post and Tahsil Balod, District Durg (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Deputy Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Writ Petition fS) No.3242 of 2010 PETITIONERS: Amitabh Mishra, S/o Shri Sampati Kumar Mishra, aged about 40 years, R/o House No.9/95, Near Sapre Primary School, Budapara, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Smt. Seema Sharma, W/o Shri Harish Chandra Sharma, aged about 47 years, R/o Leela Yadav Shala Colony, Ravi Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Higher Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, General Administration Department, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Writ Petition (S) No.3066 of 2010 PETITIONER: Dr. (Mrs.) Mrinalini Karmokar, W/o Dr. A.K. Karmoker, aged about 46 years, R/o LIG-46, Tilak ^ RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: Nagar, Gudhiyari, Raipur (CG) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Commissioner, Higher Education Directorate, Govt. Since College Campus, Raipur (CG) Writ Petition (S) No.4228 of 2010 Rajkumar Tripathi, aged about 41 years, S/o Shri Shiv Kumar Tripathi, C/o Near New Bus Stand, Bemetara, District Durg (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) Commissioner, Department of Higher Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) Writ Petition fS) No.3217 of 2010 PETITIONER: Dr. Praveen Kumar, Son of Shri Kranti Prasad Gupta, aged 44 years, R/o Shikaripara, near Water tank Balod, District Durg (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Deputy Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) ~]D !;} ii^ J •^.^'.^ ^y Writ Petition (S) No.3312 of 2010 PETITIONERS: 1. 2. 3. w Dr. Navneet Dwivedi, S/o Shiv Dayal Dwivedi, aged about 28 years, R/o Kota, Ward No.2, Near Ravishankar Stadium, Raipur, (CG) Smt. Tripti Dubey, W/o Shri Santosh Dubey, aged about 45 years, R/o Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur (CG) Dr. Smt. Purnima Mishra, w/o Shri Rajiv Mishra, aged about 46 years, R/o Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector-4, MIG-62, Raipur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of School Education, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Commissioner, Higher Education Department Directorate, Govt. Science Campus, Raipur (CG) Writ Petition fS) No.3435 of 2010 PETITIONERS: Smt. Shilpa Sharma, w/o Shri Kailash Sharma, aged about 32 years, R/o Kailash Bhawan, Aamapara, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Dr. Sangeeta Jha, D/o late B.K. Jha, aged about 38 years, R/o Lakhenagar, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Dr. Shilpa Dubey, W/o Shri Gyanendra Dubey, aged about 29 years, R/o Benikunj, Purani Basti, Baniapara, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Ku. Sweta Mrinalini Minj, D/o A.N.B. Minj, aged about 28 years, R/o Fundiladihari Mahua Para, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) Dr. Pushpa Shrivas, w/o Shri Rupesh Shrivas, aged about 34 years, R/o Vaibhav Laxmi Kiraya •^l 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Bhandar, Khamtarai, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Ku. Smriti Bhagat, D/o B.R. Bhagat, aged about 25 years, R/o Ashish STD, PCO, Gali No.l, Laxman Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Ku. Moushmi Rani Naag, D/o T.S. Naag, aged about 34 years, R/o Civil Line, Katora Talab, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Ku. Laxmi Gond, D/o Shri Suraj Gond, aged about 29 years, R/o Mahila Chhatrawsah, Pandit Ravishankar University Campus, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Smt. Ankita Khamparia, W/o Shri Ashish Pathak, aged about 27 years, R/o Shankar Nagar, Nesar Jagganath Mandir, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Smt. Richa Tikariha, W/o Shri Dinesh Mehta, aged about 32 years, R/o Purohitpara, Budhapara, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Ku. Neelam Bole, D/o Shri Rajkumar Bole, aged about 27 years, R/o Tikarapara, Shivaji Marg, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) Bhuneshwar Kumar, Son of late Shri Mastram, aged about 28 years, R/o House No.7-A, B.M.Y. Charoda, Bhilai, District Durg (CG) Anil Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Madhumangal Prasad Sharma, aged about 27 years, R/o Barsati Bada, Near Dattatri Mandir, Brahmapuri, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Vijay Kumar Kurrey, S/o N.D. Kurrey, aged about 31 years, R/o Dawda Colony, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Versus 7^ %y RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of School Education, DKS ' Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Commissioner, Higher Education Directorate, Govt. Science Campus, Raipur (CG) Writ Petition (S) No.3290 of 2010 PETITIONER: Dr. Rameshwar Singh Sahu, S/o Shri Guhled Ram Sahu, aged about 44 years, R/o Devri, Tahsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Deputy Secretary, Higher Education . Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Writ Petition fS) No.3220 of 2010 PETITIONER: Rakesh Kumar Gupta, S/o Shri Bachchu Lal Gupta, aged 38 years, R/o Station Road, Kargi Road, District Bilaspur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Deputy Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 73 Writ Petition (S) No.3302 of 2010 PETITIONER: Dilip Kumar Dwivedi, S/o late Shri Gurudayal Dwivedi, aged about 43 years, R/o Village Tanda via Ganiyari, District Bilaspur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Deputy Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Writ Petition(8) No.3219 of 2010 PETITIONER: Dinesh Kumar Makhija, S/o Shri Ram Kumar Makhija, aged about 42 years, R/o C/o Krishna Book Depot ahead new Asha Talkies, Dalli Rajhara, District Durg (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Deputy Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Writ Petition (S) No.2965 of2010 PETITIONER: Dr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, S/o V.P. Sinha, aged about 42 years, R/o Pratappur Road, Bodhanpur, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) ^ Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Commissioner, Department of Higher Education, Government Science College Campus, Raipur District Raipur (CG) University Grants through its Bahadurshah Jafar Delhi- 110002 Commission, Secretaiy, Marg, New Writ Petition (S) No.3127 of 2010 PETITIONER: Smt. Pushpa Dewangan, W/o Balbhadra Prasad Dewangan, aged about 39 years, Caste Koshta (OBC), R/o near State Bank, Raipur Road, Sarangarh, District Raipur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Commissioner, Department of Higher Education, Government Science College Campus, Raipur District Raipur (CG) University Grants through its Bahadurshah Jafar Delhi- 110002 Commission, Secretary, Marg, New Writ Petition IS) No.3303 of20W PETITIONER: Dinu Ram Sahu, Shri B.R. Sahu, aged 44 years, R/o Kargi Road, Kota, District Bilaspur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: State.ofChhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through the J 3. v Deputy Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Writ Petition (S) No.3025 of 2010 PETITIONERS: 1. ^ 6. Dr. Balbhadra Prasad Dewangan, s/o late Shankar Lal Dewangan, aged about 45 years, R/o near State Bank Raipur Raod, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (CG) Dr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, S/o Gajanand Prasad Mishra, aged about 42 years, R/o Station Road, Champa, Distnct Janjgir Champa (CG) Ashwini Kumar Kesharwani, S/o late Puniram Kesharwani, aged about 45 years, R/o Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir- Champa(CG) Prasanna Kumar Sharma, S/o Purshottam Sharma, aged about 41 years, R/o Dansara Sarangarh, District Raigarh (CG) Akshay Kumar Gupta, S/o Muktaram Gupta, aged about 52 years, R/o village Supa, District Raigarh (CG) Rakesh Kumar Giri, S/o late Surendra Giri, aged about 42 years, r/o Chhote Narmuda, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG) Versus RESPQNDENTS: 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Commissioner, Department of Higher Education, Government Science College Campus, Raipur District Raipur (CG) University Grants Commission, 10 7C through its Bahadurshah Jafar Delhi- 110002 Writ Petition {S} No.3175 of 2010 Secretary, Marg, New PETITIONER: Akhilesh Kumar Mehta, S/o Rameshwar Prasad Mehta, aged about 42 years, R/o Ring Road, Chopda Para, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) yersus RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Commissioner, Department of Higher Education, Government Science College Campus, Raipur District Raipur (CG) 3. University Grants through its Bahadurshah Jafar Delhi- 110002 Commission, Secretary, Marg, New Writ Petition {S} No.3350 of 2010 PETITIONER: Mohan Kishore Soni, S/o late Shri Parmanand Soni, aged 42 years, R/o at Baloda, Tehsil Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) Yersus RESPONDENTS: State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Deputy Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 11 -77 Writ Petition (S) No.3183 of 2010 PETITIONER: Himmat Singh Bais, S/o late Shri Dhan Singh Bais, aged about 44 years, R/o Village Pikri Tehsil Bemetara, District Durg (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Deputy Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Secretaiy, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) AND Writ Petition (S) No.4261 of 2010 PETinONERS: 1. Dr. Nand Kumar Bhoi, S/o Shri Ramji Bhoi, aged about 43 years, R/o near Sheetala Mandir, Mahalpara, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG) Uttam Kumar Pradhan, S/o Shri Vishwambhar Pradhan, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Boirdih, Ppst Jagdishpur, District Mahasamund (CG) Dharamveer Pradhan, S/o Shri Yudhistir Pradhan, aged about 3 1 years, R/o Neelganga Villa, Post Office Road, Ward No.14, P.0. and Tehsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Education, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) Commissioner, Directorate, Higher Education Government Science College Campus, Raipur (CG) ^. II 12 78 ^// ^-' Present: Shri A.K. Prasad, Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, ShriArvind Kumar Dubey, Shri R.S. Patel, Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Shri Amrito Das, Shri Ajit Singh, Shri Jitendra Pali and Shri Pawan Keshanvani, counsel for the respective petitioners. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Division Bench: Hon>ble Shri DhirendraMishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. ORDER (Passed on ^ October, 2010) Thefollowing order ofthe Court was passed by Dhirendra Mishra, <J. 1. These petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the issues involved in all these petitions are substantially common and the petitioners have questioned the constitutional validity of the Chhattisgarh Ucchha Shiksha (Samvida Seva) Niyam, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2010?) and the advertisement issued by the respondents for recruitment of the Assistant Professors under the Rules, 2010 published in Rojgar Aur Niyojan on 16th June, 2010. 2. For the purpose of this order, we shall be referring to the facts and pleadings of Writ Petition (S) No.3384/2010 (Dr. Neeta Shrivastava & pthers Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 85 another) unless it is considered necessaiy to refer the pleadings and documents of other writ petitions. 3. Briefly stated, the petitioners' case is that they were appointed as teachers on contract basis by the respondent authorities. They were rendering their ser^ices for the past many.years without any complaint to the satisfaction of the authorities and as such, they have gained experience of teaching. The State Government in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India made the Rules, 2010, which came into force on 15th June, 2010 after its 13 T5 publication in the official gazette as provided under the Rule 1 (3). Prior to enactment of the Rules, 2010, the appointments on contract basis of Assistant Professors etc. were regulated under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Ucchha Shiksha Seva Niyam, 2002 (for brevity 'the Rules, 2002?) (Annexure-P/3) and the same has been repealed by Rule 15 ofthe Rules, 2010. 4. The petitioners have questioned the constitutional validity of the Rules, 2010 particularly Rules 3, 4 (One) (b), 5 8s 6 (2)(b) and the advertisement ofAnnexure-P/2 inviting applications for appointment on contract basis on the post of Assistant Professor on the ground that the same has been issued on 11-6-2010 even before the Rules, 2010 came into force and in the advertisement, there is no provision for reser^ation for appointment ofwomen and physically handicapped candidates. 5. The respondents in their reply to the writ petitions submitted that allegation in the petition pertaining to conversion of the regular post to the post to be filled by contract appointment is misconceived. Rule 3 of the Rules, 2010 only empowers the Government to declare any post for direct recruitment as post on contract appointment by general or specific order <(for the specified period mentioned there in??. This clearly reveals that.conversion, if any, is only for a particular period till regular appointment can be made. The appointments are to be made only in those institutions run by the Government in tribal/rural areas where there is no teaching staff. The upper age limit prescribed under the Rules is in accordance with the similar provisions made for regular appointment. It is the prerogative of the State to prescribe upper age limit. The procedure and purpose for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor from the retired persons are entirely different. The 14 gD ^..^ appointment is to be made from the above categoiy by public notification. In case of special caliber and ability coupled with suitability of a particular retired person, such person can be appointed on contract basis with the consent of the Finance Department. Since the persons appointed on contract basis are not to be compulsorily appointed again on that post, weightage to the experience in case of appointment on contract basis cannot be given. 6. Rule 6 prescribes eligibility and qualifications for appointment. The candidates having Ph.D. and M. Phil degrees have been exempted from clearing eligibility test (NET) conducted by the UGC or CSIR OR (SET) conducted by the State Government. However, a candidate having Ph.D. is eligible for teaching at undergraduate and postgraduate level whereas, a candidate having M. Phil is eligible for teaching under graduate level only and, therefore, the criteria adopted for preparation of merit list under Rule 4 (Three) is absolutely justified. Referring to Rule 7 of the Rules, 2010 and clause-3 of the advertisement, it was argued that the benefit of reser^ation is available to the successful candidates in accordance with the Rules. 7. Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No.3384/2010, submitted that from bare perusal of Annexure-P/2, it would be evident that notification for advertisement was issued on 11-6-2010 and the selection process for appointment of Assistant Professor on contract basis commenced on that day with the issuance of notification. It is not in dispute that the Rules, 2010 came into force with effect from 15-6-2010 when the rules were notified in the official gazette in accordance with Rule 1 (3). Thus on 11-6-2010 when the selection process was commenced, the Rules, 2002 were in force and s^ 15 ^ ..^l the advertisement did not correspond to the Rules, 2002, but was issued under the Rules, 2010 much in anticipation. 8. On bare reading of Rule 3, it is evident that absolute discretion is vested with the State Government for declaring any post for direct recruitment as post on contract appointment to be filled in under the Rules, 2010. Neither under the Act nor under the Rules, it is provided as to on what basis the post of regular appointment shall be converted into a post to be filled in by direct appointees on contract basis. Thus, under Rule 3, an uncannalised, unguided and uncontrolled discretion has been vested with the State without specifying any aims, objects and reasons for vesting such power with the State. . 9. Assailing the contract appointment of retired persons from Government sen/rice under Rule 4 (One) (b), it was argued that there is neither any intelligible reason nor any logic provided for such categorization. The above rule creates a category of all retired Government servants irrespective of having teaching experience or not in the department. The above classiflcation is absolutely arbitrary and having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. lO.Referring to age limit prescribed under Rule 5 (1), it was argued that the candidates having long experience in teaching as Assistant Professor, who have crossed upper age limit of 32 years, are ineligible for the post whereas a retired Government servrant having no experience of teaching is eligible for appointment up to the upper age limit of 65 years. Further referring to Rule 4 (Three)(3) wherein mark distribution has been provided for the purpose of preparation of merit list, it was argued that the same does not provide for any special weightage for experience. &2. 16 Thus, the classification is arbitrary having no reasonable andjust nexus with the object sought to be achieved. ll.It was further argued that the power to fix minimum eligibility qualification for teachers of the colleges is vested with the University Grants Commission (for short 'UGC'). Under the Regulations, 2009, the UGC has prescribed minimum eligibility for appointment of Assistant Professor as that of NET/SLET qualified or candidates who have been awarded Ph.D.. The minimum qualification prescribed under Rule 4 (Three)(3) also abides by the said Reguladon, 2009 to that effect. However, note (b) to proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules, 2010 seeks to lower the minimum eligibility prescribed by the UGC under the Regulation 2009 for appointment of Assistant Professor in tribal sub project areas and the merit list is to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained at the postgraduate level without insistence for NET, SET, Ph.D/M. Phil qualification. The said action of the State Government is contrary to the regulations of the UGC and in excess of the authority of the State Government and there is no logic or reason for lowering down the qualification and the same is not permissible. 12.The Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Special Provisions for Appointmentof Women) Rules, 1997 and the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation), Act 1995 provide for reservation for women and handicapped candidates. Rule 7 provides for application of reservation rules/instructions in force for women and handicapped. However, the advertisement ofAnnexure-P/2 does not identify the posts reservred for appointment of women and handicapped and, therefore, the advertisement is liable for quashment for not providing reservration for women and handicapped. €3 17 13.8hri Ajit Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No.3435/2010 and 3312/2010, would argue that the petitioners are already working as teachers on contract basis and as such, are having experience of teaching, however, under the Rules, 2010, no additional weightage has been given towards experience in teaching. It is settled law that employees appointed on contract basis to perform duties cannot be replaced by another contract employees and they should be allowed to continue to perform their duties till the prescribed period or till regular appointment is made. Reliance is placed in the matter of State of Haryana and others, etc. etc. Vs. Piara Singh and others etc. etc.1. 14.8mt. Fouzia Mirza, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No.3242/2010 and learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in other writ petitions also advanced similar arguments. 15.0n the other hand, Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the selection process commenced after publication of the advertisement in Rojgar Aur Niyojan in its 16th June, 2010 edition inviting applications for the post of contract Assistant Professors in the Higher Education Department of the State whereas, the Rules, 2010 were notified in the official gazette on 15th June, 2010. The date 11-6-2010 appearing in the advertisement was an internal communication for publication of advertisement to the press. Since the officers of the State were aware that the Rules, 2010 would be published on 15-6-2010, they ensured that the advertisement is published subsequent to the publication of the Rules, 2010 in the official gazette and communication to this effect was sent to the press. 1 AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 2130 18 ^ '.;3^'»w- The above exercise was undertaken considering the paucity of time as academic session was to commence by the next month. 16.Clause-3 of the advertisement specifically provides for reservation for women and physically handicapped as per the Rules and Regulations. The State has already given undertaking that appointment of women and physically handicapped will be ensured as per reservration roster. The reservration for women and physically handicapped is special horizontal reservration, which is to be followed category-wise and this exercise is to be undertaken only after preparation of select list by applying vertical reser^ation. Reliance is placed in the matter of Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Seryice