Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 7 SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.05.03 12:10:38 +0530 2025:CGHC:19575 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2966 of 2025 1 - Deepesh Sarthi S/o Ravishankar Sarthi Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Santosh Nagar, Patpara Para Dharamjaigarh Colony, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Anjali Jaiswal D/o Om Prakash Jaiswal Aged About 24 Years R/o Sohagpur, Post Karanji, Dist. Surajpur (C.G.) 3 - Adarsh Pratap Deo Singh S/o Ashok Pratap Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o Tildega Road, Pathalgaon, Dist. Jashpur (C.G.) 4 - Neelkamal Kaushik S/o Krishna Kumar Kaushik Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 09 Yatayat Nagar, Parsada, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Rahul Singh Netam S/o Late Ajay Netam Aged About 22 Years R/o Bhagwanpur, Adiwashipur, Dist. Ambikapur (C.G.) 6 - Sunil Ekka S/o Sukalk Sai Ekka Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 27, Amatikra, Pachra Dist. Korba (C.G.) 7 - Shubham Kumar Rathore S/o Chhotelal Rathore Aged About 25 Years R/o Gataura, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) 8 - Devendra Kumar Nishad S/o Kumar Ram Nishad Aged About 27 2 / 7 Years R/o 91(2) K R Nishad Sanjay Nagar, Ward No.-9 Ram Nagar Fingeshwar, Dist. Gariyaband (C.G.) 9 - Ravi Kumar S/o Gopal Prasad Aged About 28 Years R/o Banki Mongra, Dist. Korba (C.G.) 10 - Pratik Harsh Xaxa S/o Avtar Xaxa Aged About 29 Years R/o Vill. Basen, Jashpur, Dist. Musgutri (C.G.) 11 - Vinay Bhagat S/o Hari Charan Oraon Aged About 29 Years R/o Vill. Chandandih, P.O. Latehar, Dist. Latehar, Jharkhand 12 - Monesh Kumar Uikey S/o Nand Ram Uikey Aged About 28 Years R/o Machadali, P.O. Aitma, Podiuproda, Dist. Korba (C.G.) 13 - Subhash Singh S/o Ramnarayan Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o House No. 29/ K Nawapra, Padhnia, Dist. Korba (C.G.) 14 - Chhababidayal S/o Phool Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Vijay Naga (Binjhra), P.O Urja Nagar, Dist. Korba (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
15 - Ganesh Kumar Mirre S/o Mr. Shyam Lal Mirre Aged About 30 Years R/o Pathalgaon, Dist. Jashpur (C.G.) 16 - Vijendra Kumar Uyake S/o B.P. Uyake Aged About 39 Years R/o Plot No. 17, Saraswati Kunj, Risali, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 17 - Ghanshyam S/o Jageshwar, R/o House No. 102, Ward No. 7 School Para, Singhurikula, Post Mundroad, Dist. Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission Through Secretary, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 / 7 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Mining Resources Department, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Directorate Of Geology And Mining Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate alongwith Mr. For Respondent No.1 For Respondents/ State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer Ashutosh Biswas, Advocate : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 30/04/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are questioning the corrigendum dated 02/04/2025 issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission by which the educational qualification criteria for the recruitment to the post of Mining Inspector vide advertisement dated 02/02/2022, has been changed from Graduation in Geology with Science or Diploma in Mining Engineering to Graduation in Geology with Science or Graduation in Mining Engineering. 2. (i) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Commission issued an advertisement dated 02/02/2022 (Annexure P/2) for direct recruitment of Mining Inspector. The applications were invited from eligible candidates from 15/02/2022 to 16/02/2022. The Clause (2)(B)(iii)(a), the required educational qualification prescribed in the said advertisement was graduation in Science with Geology or Diploma in Mining Engineering. The 4 / 7 petitioners were applied for the said post of Mining Inspector being the diploma holders in Mining Engineering after submission of application form, the Commission did not proceed in the said recruitment process pursuance to the advertisement dated 02/02/2022 however, by issuance of a corrigendum (Annexure P/1), the educational qualification in the Clause (2)(B)(iii)(a) has been changed by mentioning Graduation in Geology with Science or Graduation in Mining Engineering. (ii) Learned counsel would further submit that once the advertisement issued by inviting applications and fixing the criteria for educational qualification as Graduation in Science with Geology or Diploma in Mining Engineering, the same cannot be changed in the midway as the same is contrary to the settled position of law that the ‘rule of the game could not be changed in the midway’. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have waited for a period of three years for the said recruitment and at this stage, due to the change in the educational qualification, the petitioners will be deprived from participating in the recruitment process. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as for PSC, on the other hand, would submit that the corrigendum dated 02/04/2025 has been issued because of the amendment in the Chhattisgarh (Class III Executive, Geology and Mining Service Recruitment) Rules, 2008 (for short, “the Rules of 2008”) on 13/03/2024. 4. They further submit that once the Service Rules has been 5 / 7 amended by prescribing a particular qualification, the recruitment can only be made on the basis of the provision prescribed in the service rules. The amended Rule provides the educational qualification for the post of Mining Inspector as Graduation in Geology with Science or Graduation in Mining Engineering. Hence there is no illegality in issuance of corrigendum to amend the educational qualification prescribed in the earlier advertisement dated 02/02/2022. It appears from the corrigendum dated 02/04/2025 that the advertisement dated 02/02/2022 was kept in abeyance vide notice dated 11/03/2022 on the request of the State Government dated 09/03/2022. Presently, on the instruction of the State Government, the present corrigendum has been issued by making amendment in the required educational qualification. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are only questioning the corrigendum except challenging the
Decision
Service Rules, 2008 hence, the writ petition seeking quashment of corrigendum is not maintainable and hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Clause (2)(B)(iii)(a) of the initial advertisement dated 2-2-2022 reads as under :- (2) xxx (B) xxx (iii) xxx (a) “भू- वि(cid:4)्ሺान सवि(cid:9)त वि(cid:4)्ሺान में स्नातक उपाधि(cid:18) अथ(cid:4)ा माइिሪनग इंजीविनयिሲ(cid:29)ग में प्ቔोंपाधि(cid:18) ” 7. Perusal of corrigendum reveals that the Clause (2)(B)(iii)(a) has 6 / 7 been amended by prescribing educational qualification as "भू- ” वि(cid:4)्ሺान में स्नातक उपाधि(cid:18) अथ(cid:4)ा माइिሪनग इंजीविनयिሲ(cid:29)ग में स्नातक उपाधि(cid:18) (Graduation in Geology with Science or Graduation in Mining Engineering.). 8. Perusal of the corrigendum would also shows that the advertisement dated 02/02/2022 was kept in abeyance by notice dated 11/03/2022 by PSC pursuance to the communication of the Mining Department of the State of Chhattisgarh. 9. In the meanwhile, the Rules of 2008 amended by making amendment in the required educational qualification for the post of Mining Inspector which reads as under :- 1. Sub-clause (e) of clause (1) of Rule(8) shall be omitted. 2. In rule 19, for the words "two", the word "three" shall be substituted. 3. In column (6) of serial number 1 of Schedule-III, for the words "or diploma in Mining Engineering", the words "or Bachelor degree in Mining Engineering shall be substituted. 10. After the said amendment on the basis of the requisition made by the State Government, the PSC proceeded in the advertisement by issuance of the impugned corrigendum dated 02/04/2025 by amending the required educational qualification. The advertisement dated 02/02/2022 was kept in abeyance vide notice dated 11/03/2022. Hence requisite changes in educational qualification pursuance to the amendment in Service Rules cannot be stated as change of rule of game. Once the Service 7 / 7 Rules has been amended and the Rule has prescribed a qualification, the recruitment can only be made on the basis of the provision of said Rule hence there is no illegality in issuance of corrigendum by amending the requisite educational qualification. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the requisite educational qualification prescribed under the Rules, they may question the same before appropriate forum. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be and is hereby dismissed as there is no substance therein. $. Bhilwar Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE