Nafr High Court
Case Details
RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.04.30 10:28:15 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:19002 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2860 of 2025 1 - Dhruv Agrawal S/o Ajay Agrawal Aged About 22 Years R/o House No. 151, Main Road Rajpur, P.S. Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. versus Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Mineral Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary North Block Sector- 19, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) For State For Resp. No.2
Legal Reasoning
6. There is no dispute that as on 01/01/2022, the petitioner was below the lower limit of age i.e. 21 years on the date of issuance of the impugned advertisement. It is the case of the petitioner that since the Corrigendum (Annexure-P/2) dated 02/04/2025 has been issued with certain modification, the cut-off date to apply for the posts as published in the 2 In WPC No. 3397/2012 (decided on 06/02/2013) 4 impugned advertisement, should be shifted to 02/04/2025, so that, he may become eligible for applying for the post of Mining Engineering. 7. This Court after going through the advertisement dated 02/02/2022 (Annexure-P/1) finds that for applying to the posts mentioned in Annexure-P/1, the lower age limit of 21 years and upper age limit of 30 years as on 01/01/2022 were prescribed to fill up the forms. As such, the candidates who were below the prescribed lower limit of age i.e. 21 years were not eligible to apply or to fill up the form. Certainly, there was some age relaxation in the upper age limit, subject to fulfillment of certain requirement. 8. Subsequently, the PSC issued the Corrigendum (Annexure-P/2) on 02/04/2025 for modification in education qualification mentioned at clause (2)(B)(iii)(a) of the advertisement dated 02/02/2022 (Annexure- P/1). The modification was in education qualification only i.e. the education qualification i.e. “भू- वि(cid:4)्ሺान सवि(cid:29)त वि(cid:4)्ሺान में स्नातक उपाधि(cid:16) अथ(cid:4)ा माइिሪनग इंजीविनयिሲ(cid:27)ग में प्ቔोंपाधि(cid:16) shall be read as "भू- ” वि(cid:4)्ሺान में स्नातक उपाधि(cid:16) अथ(cid:4)ा माइिሪनग इंजीविनयिሲ(cid:27)ग में स्नातक उपाधि(cid:16) . It was cleared in the Corrigendum (Annexure- ” P/2) that all the conditions mentioned in the advertisement dated 02/02/2022 shall remain as it is. 9. Thus, the Corrigendum (Annexure-P/2) has not given any relaxation with respect to the age, therefore, this Court is the opinion that the vacancies have to be filled up from amongst the eligible candidates pertaining to the year of the vacancy for the reasons that if the cut-off date to apply is shifted to the date of issuance of the corrigendum, then 5 the candidates who had applied for the posts at the age of 28 or 29 years, at the time of issuance of impugned advertisement, would become ineligible. If for some reasons the selection process is postponed, only those who were eligible in the year of the vacancy should be considered. 10. Accordingly, the contention of the petitioner, to shift the eligibility cut- off date to 02/04/2025 would amount to modifying the track and as a result making ineligible many candidates who now have crossed the age of 30 years as of 02/04/2025, cannot be accepted.
Arguments
: Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, PL : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 28/04/2025 1. By way of the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondents’ authority to allow him to participate in the examination by shifting the cut-off date to the date of corrigendum dated 02/04/2025 (Annexure-P/2) after amending Clause 4 of the advertisement dated 02/02/2022 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the minimum age limit was set of as 21 years as on 01/01/2022. 2. Facts of the case in the nutshell is that Chhattisgarh Public Service 2 Commission1 has published an advertisement on 02/02/2022, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for certain posts mentioned in the advertisement (Annexure-P/1). The minimum age for applying was prescribed as 21 years as on 01/01/2022, whereas the upper age limit was prescribed as 30 years with certain relaxation subject to the fulfillment of requirement. Subsequently, vide Corrigendum dated 02/04/2025 (Annexure-P/2) one of the condition mentioned at Clause (2) (B)(iii)(a) in the advertisement dated 02/02/2022 was changed to "भू- वि(cid:4)्ሺान में स्नातक उपाधि(cid:16) अथ(cid:4)ा माइिሪनग इंजीविनयिሲ(cid:27)ग में स्नातक उपाधि(cid:16) , which was earlier ” as “भू- वि(cid:4)्ሺान सवि(cid:29)त वि(cid:4)्ሺान में स्नातक उपाधि(cid:16) अथ(cid:4)ा माइिሪनग इंजीविनयिሲ(cid:27)ग में प्ቔोंपाधि(cid:16) . The ” petitioner, herein, after finding himself as eligible on the basis of subsequent corrigendum (Annexure-P/2) has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents’ authority to shift the cut-off date to the date of issuance of corrigendum date, so that he may apply in the said advertisement. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though by the impugned advertisement dated 02/02/2022, the minimum criteria of age was set to 21 years as on 01/01/2022, but due to the corrigendum issued on 02/04/2025 with changing conditions to fill up the forms for certain posts, the petitioner who has attained the age of 21 years as on 06/09/2024 and having Graduation in Mining Engineering, should be allowed to fill up the form and participate in the examination because of the said Corrigendum. 1 The PSC 3 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Corrigendum dated 02/04/2025, which the petitioner has referred to, only speaks about modification of certain condition in education qualification. As per the said corrigendum, it has been directed that in clause (2)(B)(iii)(a) of the advertisement dated 02/02/2022 (Annexure-P/1), the education qualification i.e. “भू- वि(cid:4)्ሺान सवि(cid:29)त वि(cid:4)्ሺान में स्नातक उपाधि(cid:16) अथ(cid:4)ा माइिሪनग इंजीविनयिሲ(cid:27)ग में प्ቔोंपाधि(cid:16) shall be read as "भू- ” वि(cid:4)्ሺान में स्नातक उपाधि(cid:16) अथ(cid:4)ा माइिሪनग इंजीविनयिሲ(cid:27)ग में स्नातक उपाधि(cid:16) . ” Thus, it is clear that it was issued only for correction/modification of the said education qualification, but not to change any other condition like age limit. Learned counsel would submit that in the corrigendum all the other conditions, which were earlier mentioned in the impugned advertisement have been kept intact, as such, the petitioner may not be allowed to fill up the form or to participate in the examination. Reliance has been placed upon Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. v. Preeti Balyan & Anr.2, Therefore, the petition is not maintainable. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned advertisement dated 02/02/2022 (Annexure-P/1) as well as corrigendum dated 02/04/2025.
Decision
11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any substance in this Writ Petition and therefore, the Writ Petition being devoid of merits, is deserved to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul