Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.07.26 11:18:12 +0530 2025:CGHC:35252-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 504 of 2025 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through Its General Manager, Dangniya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 1) 2 - Deputy General Manager Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd, Dangniya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 2) 3 - Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd, Division Dangniya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.(Respondent No.3) 4 - Additional Chief Engineer (H.R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd, Division Dangniya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.(Respondent No. 4) --- Appellants Versus Mukund Madhav Singh Kanwar S/o Anand Singh Kanwar Aged About 35 Years Posted As Junior Engineer At 132 K.V., Sub-Station Basna, District Mahasamund Under E.E. Sub-Station, Dn- 2, C.S.P.T.C.L. Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.(Petitioner) WA No. 507 of 2025 --- Respondent 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through Its General Manager, Danganiya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No.1) 2 - Additional Chief Engineer (HR) Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd, Division Danganiya District Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No.2) 2 3 - Deputy General Manager (HR) - II Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd, Danganiya District Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No.3) 4 - Deputy General Manager (HR) - II Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd, Danganiya District Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No.4) 5 - Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd, Division Danganiya District Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No.5) 6 - Additional Chief Engineer (Hr) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd, Division Danganiya District Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No.6) ---Appellants Versus Anmol Kurariya S/o Shri Rakesh Kurariya Aged About 29 Years R/o House No. 5/883 Near Jagananad Smriti Chikitsalaya, Behind Balaram Takij, Gandhi Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner) WA No. 508 of 2025 ... Respondent 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through Its General Manager, Danganiya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No 01) 2 - Additional Chief Engineer (HR), Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Division Danganiya, District Raipur. (Respondent No.2) 3 - Deputy General Manager, (HR) -II, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No.3) 4 - Deputy General Manager (HR) - II, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No.4) 5 - Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Division Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No.5) 6 - Additional Chief Engineer (HR), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Division Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No.6) ---Appellants 3 Versus Renu Lakra Daughter Of Shri Oskar Lakra, Aged About 29 Years Resident Of House No. L/85, Chief House Bartunga Ward No. 26, Chirmiri, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner) WA No. 509 of 2025 --- Respondent 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through Its General Manager, Daganiya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 1) 2 - Additional Chief Engineer (HR), Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Division Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No.2) 3 - Deputy General Manager (HR) - II, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Compay Ltd., Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No.3) 4 - Deputy General Manager (HR) - II, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 4) 5 - Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Division Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No.5) 6 - Additional Chief Engineer (HR), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Division Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No.6) ---Appellants Versus Abhishek Chandrakar S/o Shri Chowa Ram Chandrakar, Aged About 31 Years Resident Of Behind Reliance Tower, Dowda Colony, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner) --- Respondent WA No. 512 of 2025 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through Its General Manager, Danganiya, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Deputy General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmissin Company Ltd., Danganiya, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 3 - Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Division Danganiya, District-Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Additional Chief Engineer (HR), Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Division Danganiya, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ---Appellants Versus Shubhendu Pratap Singh S/o Shri Surendra Kumar Singh, Aged About 33 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Officers Collony Bishrampur, Surajpur, District-Surajpur (C.G.) WA No. 514 of 2025 --- Respondent 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through Its General Manager, Danganiya, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.1) 2 - Deputy General Manager Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No.2) 3 - Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No.3) 4 - Additional Chief Engineer (H.R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Division Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No.4) ---Appellants Versus 1 - Sourabh Singh S/o Brishket Singh Aged About 32 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Bhaismundi, Janjgir-Champa, District - Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 1) 2 - Dharmendra Kumar Sahu S/o Santosh Sahu Aged About 32 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Bareth Kholi No. 1, Selar, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.2) 3 - Brajesh Kumar Dhurwey S/o Dewan Singh Dhurwey Aged About 29 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Bhanakhodra, Chilphi Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.3) 4 - Choleshwar Singh Usendi S/o Kumar Singh Usendi Aged About 35 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Narallguda, Balod, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.4) 5 5 - Alish Mary Kerketta S/o Nestor Kerketta Aged About 29 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Circuit House Road, Bade Rampur, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.5) 6 - Abhishek Rathi S/o Suresh Kumar Rathi Aged About 30 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Kisaan Ward, Kumi Para Bemetara, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.6) 7 - Alwin Toppo S/o Vikram Toppo Aged About 31 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Near Shiv Ganga Talkies, Kunkuri, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.7) 8 - Ashwin Toppo S/o Agustine Toppo Aged About 31 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Saluja Vihar Road, Bharti Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.8) 9 - Viraaj Maan Ekka S/o Manohar Sai Ekka Aged About 29 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Godhanpur Near Mission Talab, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.9) 10 - Alin Kujur S/o Kaleshwar Kujur Aged About 30 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Shakti Nagar, Gevra Project, Devra Deepika, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.10) 11 - Sunil Ram S/o Dharampaal Ram Aged About 34 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Lechopara, Lhajuri Kusmi, Balrampur, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.11) 12 - Prasant Netam S/o Heera Singh Netam Aged About 33 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Ramlal Pradhan Para, Shiv Temple Kodabhat, Kanker, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.12) 13 - Lochan Singh Dhruw S/o Govind Prasad Dhruw Aged About 32 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Near Apna Kirana Store, Jayanti Nagar Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.13) 14 - Kishor Kumar Kindo S/o Bhari Ram Kindo Aged About 31 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Gawatiya Para, Ulkiya, Sarguja, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.14) 15 - Dileep Singh Raj S/o Garib Singh Aged About 39 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Sarotiya Niwas Sirki Khurd, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.15) 16 - Vivek Kumar Singh S/o Ram Dinesh Singh Aged About 30 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Bartunga, Chirmiri Khadgawa, Korea, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.16) 17 - Shantnu Bardhan S/o Gaur Gopal Bardham Aged About 30 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Shivrajpuri, Colony, Purani Itarashi, Hosangabaad, District Hosangabaad, Madhya Pradesh. (Petitioner No. 17) 6 18 - Roshan Kumar Patel S/o Mayaram Patel Aged About 31 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Kanhaiya Marg, Krishna Vatika Colony, Boridadar Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.18) 19 - Avinash Xess S/o Alexander Xess Aged About 33 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Beck Guruji Toli Kansabel, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.19) 20 - Shivani Hidko S/o Nirmala Hidko Aged About 29 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Saketnagar Govindpur Kanker, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.20) 21 - Dev Prasad S/o Vijay Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Bhainsbod Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.21) 22 - Amit Kumar Netam S/o Anirudh Singh Netam Aged About 30 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o New Railway Colony, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.22) 23 - Kundan Lal Dhruw S/o Manharan Lal Dhruw Aged About 35 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Pallari, Baloda Bazar, District Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.23) 24 - Rakesh Jagat S/o Tribhuwan Singh Jagat Aged About 32 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Sidar Para, Adbhar (N.P.) Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.24) 25 - Rashmi Singh D/o Kundan Lal Dhruw Aged About 35 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Sindhi Colony, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.25) 26 - Sunil Kumar Nag S/o Jayram Nag Nakapara Chakipara, Dantewada, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.26) 27 - Vivek Kumar Thakur S/o U.S. Thakur Aged About 32 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Kharkhara Nahar, Amapara, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.27) 28 - Abhishek Kumar Lakra S/o George Clear Lakra Aged About 34 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Shivam Vihar, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.28) 29 - Anita Dhale D/o Lailu Ram Dhale Aged About 30 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Daybadi Lohara, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.29) 30 - Fakir Mohan Choudhary S/o Bansheedhar Choudhary Aged About 33 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Koltapara, Birnipali, (C.G.) (Petitioner No. 30) 7 31 - Avinash Kumar Singh S/o Bidya Nand Singh Aged About 31 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Bhilai Sector-7, Civic Center Bhilai, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.31) 32 - Girdhar Kumar S/o Santosh Sai Paikra Aged About 33 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Sukhwasu Basti, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.32) 33 - Shravan Kumar S/o Pannalal Aged About 33 Years Working As, R/o Woodland Amleshwar, Near Mahadev Ghat, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.33) 34 - Ashutosh Ram S/o Umashankar Ram Aged About 36 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Kamari Shankagarh, Surguja, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner No.34) --- Respondents WA No. 517 of 2025 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through Its General Manager, Danganiya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Additional Chief Engineer (HR) Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Division Danganiya, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deputy General Manager (HR)-II Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Danganiya, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Deputy General Manager (HR)-II Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Danganiya, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Division Danganiya, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Additional Chief Engineer (HR) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company, Ltd., Division Danganiya, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellants Versus
Legal Reasoning
Prasanna Kumar Upadhyay S/o Shri Durgesh Kumar Upadhyay Aged About 32 Years R/o In Front Of Soni Hospital, Manas Ashram, Kharora Road, Tulsi 2, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent 8 WA No. 519 of 2025 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through Its General Manager, Dangniya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 1) 2 - Additional Chief Engineer (H.R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Division Dangniya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.(Respondent No. 2) 3 - Deputy General Manager (H.R.)- 2 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Division Dangniya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.(Respondent No. 3) 4 - Deputy General Manager (H.R.)- 2 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Division Dangniya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.(Respondent No. 4) 5 - Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Division Dangniya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.(Respondent No. 5) 6 - Additional Chief Engineer (H.R.) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Division Dangniya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.(Respondent No. 6) ---Appellants Versus Lisha Markam D/o Nohar Singh Markam Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Railway Colony Balod, Balod Chhattisgarh --- Respondent WA No. 520 of 2025 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through Its General Manager, Danganiya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1) 2 - Deputy General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2) 3 - Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3) 4 - Additional Chief Engineer (HR), Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 4) ---Appellants 9 Versus 1 - Deepak Kumar Nikunj S/o Modar Ram Nikunj Aged About 29 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Near Gandhi Vidya Peeth School, Gandinagar, Soni Mohala, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (C.G.) (Petitioner No. 1) 2 - Abhishek Sahu S/o Lalit Kumar Sahu, Aged About 29 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Professor Colony, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Petitioner No. 2) 3 - Ajay Kumar Thakur S/o Suresh Kumar Thakur Aged About 30 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Awantika Colony, Jagdalpur, District- Jagdalpur (C.G.) (Petitioner No. 3) 4 - Riya Agrawal D/o Rajesh Agrawal Aged About 29 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Mahamai Para, Purani Basti, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Petitioner No. 4) 5 - Abdul Azim Dad Khan S/o Rashid Dad Khan Aged About 32 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Dabripara Ramnagar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner No. 5) 6 - Abhishek Rathi S/o Suresh Kumar Rathi Aged About 30 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Kisaan Ward, Kumi Para Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) (Petitioner No. 6) 7 - Alwin Toppo S/o Vikram Toppo Aged About 31 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Near Shiv Ganga Talkies, Kunkuri, Jashpur, District - Jashpur (C.G.) (Petitioner No. 7) --- Respondents WA No. 525 of 2025 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through Its General Manager, Danganiya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1) 2 - Deputy General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2) 3 - Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Division Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3) 4 - Additional Chief Engineer (HR), Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Division Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 4) ---Appellants 10 Versus Deepika Bhagat D/o Shri Vikram Ram Bhagat, Aged About 30 Years Posted As Junior Engineer, Nehru Nagar Zone, CSPDCL, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner) WA No. 526 of 2025 --- Respondent 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through Its General Manager, Danganiya, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), (Respondent No. 1), (Respondents) 2 - Deputy General Manager Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Danganiya, District Raipur (C.G.), (Respondent No. 2) 3 - Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Division Danganiya, District Raipur (C.G.), (Respondent No. 3) 4 - Additional Chief Engineer (HR) Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Division Danganiya, District Raipur (C.G.), (Respondent No. 4) ---Appellants Versus 1 - Pooja Topno D/o Alexander Topno Aged About 28 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o H.N. 553 Nchepara, Rambhatha Raigarh (C.G.), (Petitioner No. 1), (Petitioners) 2 - Puran Lal Kanwar S/o Bhagwat Ram Kanwar Aged About 27 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o 162 Plot No. D 1/25 Muktidha, Ram Nagar, Supela Bhilai, Durg District Durg (C.G.), (Petitioner No. 2) 3 - Prabha Shriwas D/o Vishnu Prasad Shriwas Aged About 32 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Gulab Nagar Phase - III Sipat Road, Mopka, Bilaspur (C.G.), (Petitioner No. 3) 4 - Durga Prasad Tiwari S/o Vijay Tiwari Aged About 33 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Bade Math Para, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), (Petitioner No. 4) 5 - Raman Lal S/o Baliyar Singh Aged About 35 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Dundera Balod, District Balod (C.G.), (Petitioner No. 5) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) --- Respondents 11 For Appellants : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Private Respondents : Mr. Ishan Verma, Ms. Diksha Gouraha and Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23.07. 2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.01 of 2025, applications of condonation of delay in filing the appeals. 2. Considering the grounds mentioned in the applications (I.A. No.01 of 2025), we hereby condone the delay in filing the present appeals. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeals are heard finally. 4. Heard Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appellants in all the appeals. Also heard Mr. Ishan Verma and Ms. Diksha Gouraha, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents. 5. Since common facts and grounds involved in these writ appeals, therefore, they are being considered together and decided by this common judgment. 6. The present intra Court appeals have been filed against the order dated 25/04/2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ 12 Petition (S) No.5228/2024 and analogous cases, whereby the writ
Decision
petition filed by the writ petitioners/respondents herein has been disposed of. 7. Challenge before the learned Single Judge is to the advertisement dated 22/08/2024 issued by the appellant/Electricity Company for recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer-Trainee (T&D). The appellants were seeking a direction towards the authorities to compute the qualifying services of the appellants for the post Assistant Engineer-Trainee (T&D), from the date of order of appointment/joining and declare them eligible for participating in the process of selection on the post of Assistant Engineer. 8. Brief facts of the cases, are that initially the authorities issued an advertisement dated 11/03/2024 for recruitment/promotion of departmental candidates to the post of Assistant Engineer- Trainee (T&D), wherein there is specific column that for the said post, the experience of five years regular service on the post of Junior Engineer is required. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the writ petitioners applied for the post as they were working on the post of Junior Engineer since 05/09/2018 and they had five years experience on the post of Junior Engineer. However, the authorities rejected the applications of the writ petitioners on the ground that they have no experience of five years regular service on the post of Junior Engineer. From the said fact, it appears that 13 the authorities while scrutinizing the applications forms, excluded the period of training obtained by the writ petitioners on the post of Junior Engineer. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the said inaction on the part of the authorities, the similarly situated persons preferred a writ petition bearing WPS No.4779/2024, in which, the writ Court vide order dated 09/08/2024 directed the authorities to allow the writ petitioners to appear in the examination on 11/08/2024, subject to the condition that result shall not be declared without leave of the Court. 10. According to the writ petitioners, despite detailed order passed by the writ Court, the authorities instead of conducting the examination pursuance to the advertisement dated 11/03/2024, the said advertisement itself had been cancelled on 21/08/2024 and on the very next day i.e. on 22/08/2024, they issued the fresh advertisement and the last date for submission of the application form was 30/08/2024. In the said advertisement, the minimum qualifying service for the post of Assistant Engineer-Trainee (T&D) has been fixed as 5 years of regular service from the date of regularization in the post of Junior Engineer (T&D) in respective Power Company, excluding the training period, which is illegal, arbitrary and the same has been imposed only to deprive the writ petitioners from participating in the said selection process and to frustrate the interim order dated 09/08/2024, the 14 authorities have cancelled the said advertisement dated 11/03/2024 and again issued the fresh advertisement dated 22/08/2024. 11. Challenging the said inaction on the part of the authorities, the writ petitioners had filed various writ petitions leading case bearing WPS No.5228/2024, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25/04/2025 holding that as only few days were left to complete the requisite period of regular service and particularly considering the fact that the writ petitioners were employees of the Electricity Company and had gained the experience in the said department, the authorities were directed to consider the case of the writ petitioners and they be extended the benefit of relaxation in completing the requisite period of regular service on the feeder post and thereafter, publish the result of examination of the departmental examination to the post of Assistant Engineer- Trainee (T&D), within a period of 30 days from the date of the impugned order. 12. Feeling aggrieved with the said verdict dated 25/04/2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.5228/2024 and analogous cases, the respondents therein, i.e. appellants- Company have preferred these writ appeals. 13. Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appellants respectfully submits as under:- • The advertisement dated 22/08/2024 was issued strictly 15 in conformity with the service conditions and recruitment policy framed through resolutions dated 2018 and 23/08/2023, wherein it is categorically provided that the essential qualification of five years' experience must be in regular service as Junior Engineer (T&D), thereby explicitly excluding the period spent as Junior Engineer (Trainee) and the Hon’ble Single Judge failed to consider this binding stipulation while issuing directions for relaxation. • The writ petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Engineers (Trainee) vide order dated 05/09/2018 and remained on a fixed stipend during the one-year training period. The subsequent order dated 13/02/2020, appointing them on probation as Junior Engineer (T&D), clearly indicates that the writ petitioners’ regular service in the cadre commenced only from 05/09/2019. As such, the writ petitioners had not completed five years of regular service as on the cut-off date i.e. 30/08/2024, rendering them ineligible under the express terms of the advertisement. • The eligibility criteria of five years’ regular service has consistently been applied even in previous recruitment, including the recruitment of the year 2018. In that process also, the training period was expressly excluded from 16 reckoning the experience, thereby maintaining consistency and uniformity in the interpretation of essential qualifications, which the Hon’ble Single Judge failed to consider the settled practice. • The prescription of a cut-off date and eligibility criteria is a matter of executive policy, and it lies within the exclusive domain of the employer. Judicial interference is not warranted unless there is manifest arbitrariness or mala fide, which is absent in the present cases. The Hon’ble Single Judge’s direction to selectively relax eligibility for a limited group of 47 candidates interferes with administrative discretion and violates the principle of equality, especially when 85 other similarly placed candidates did not participate in the examination solely due to ineligibility as per the advertisement. • The Hon’ble Single Judge, having recorded in para 8 of the impugned order that the advertisement was issued in consonance with the Rules, ought not to have granted relief contrary to the very terms of the validly issued advertisement, the direction to grant relaxation without a challenge to the governing Rules or a finding of illegality amounts to rewriting the terms of the recruitment, which is impermissible in judicial review. • Para 10 of the impugned judgment clearly noted that the 17 writ petitioners have not challenged the Rules framed vide resolution dated 23/08/2023, and hence, no relief contrary to such unchallenged and binding rules could have been granted by the Hon’ble Single Judge. • No mandamus can be issued to the employer to exercise the power of relaxation selectively, particularly in a case where the recruitment process has already progressed beyond the written examination stage and the essential eligibility condition has been uniformly applied to all applicants. The directions issued by the Hon’ble Single Judge, if implemented, would result in undue benefit to a small group of candidates to the exclusion of others equally placed, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution. In view of the above submissions, the order dated 25/04/2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.5228/2024 and analogous cases, is liable to be set aside. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Ishan Verma, Ms. Diksha Gouraha and Mr. Kaushal Yadav, learned counsel for the private respondents (original writ petitioners) respectfully submits as under:- • The Hon’ble Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petitions by exercising equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, keeping in view the fact that the private respondents had already participated in the 18 selection process based on their bona fide understanding and prior experience, and had even been permitted to appear in the written examination conducted by the appellants. • The writ petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineer (Trainee) on 05/09/2018, and after successfully completing the mandatory one-year training, they were continuously discharging the same duties and responsibilities without any break. Their functional designation as Junior Engineer (T&D) and continuity of service from 05/09/2018 onwards was never interrupted. Therefore, it is unjust to exclude the training period for the purpose of computing five years’ service experience, especially when they have rendered uninterrupted and substantive service. • The exclusion of the training period is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the settled principle that where the duties during training are equivalent or similar to the duties of the regular post, the service should be counted. In the present cases, the private respondents had undergone field training and were assigned duties indistinguishable from regular Junior Engineers, and thus, their experience ought to be reckoned from the date of initial appointment. 19 • The appellants permitted the private respondents to appear in the examination, thereby recognizing their eligibility at least on prima facie basis. After having allowed them to participate in the first stage of the selection process, it is not open for the appellants to now turn around and reject their candidature at a subsequent stage on technical grounds, as such action is ex-facie arbitrary and hit by the doctrine of legitimate expectation. • The Hon’ble Single Judge, while passing the impugned order, has not altered or rewritten the recruitment rules. Instead, the Court has merely directed a just and equitable consideration of the experience of those candidates who have already participated in the selection process and whose training period is indistinguishable from regular service. • The Hon’ble Single Judge has exercised discretion in a limited manner, only for the benefit of 47 candidates who had participated in the selection process. The apprehension that this would prejudice 85 other candidates who did not apply is unfounded, as no such grievance was raised by any of them in the writ proceedings. Moreover, equity cannot be denied to eligible candidates merely because others chose not to avail their opportunity. 20 • The direction issued by the Hon’ble Single Judge is not a blanket relaxation of Rules, but a case-specific exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, warranted under the peculiar facts of the case, where the training period forms an integral part of the service structure and the respondents were made to discharge duties equivalent to regular Junior Engineers throughout. In view of the above submissions, the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge does not warrant any interference and present appeals may be dismissed with costs. 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. 16. After considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge while relying upon the relevant Rules as also the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Others, 2008 (9) SCC 177, National Institute of Technology v. U. Dinakar and Another, (2014) 13 SCC 180 and R.N. Goyal v. Ashwani Kumar Gupta and Others, (2004) 11 SCC 753, has passed the impugned order in the following terms:- “7. From Clause-(v) of Agenda No. 109/21 of the Resolution dated 22/08/2023 passed by the Board of Directors of the CSPTCL at its 21 109th Meeting, it is manifest that after approval of the recruitment rules by the Board, the said Rules will be valid in the Chhattisgarh State Power Companies and all future recruitment will be made as per the approved the said Rules. 8. From bare perusal of the said Schedule-II, it is crystal clear that for the post of Assistant Engineer (T&D), the minimum qualifying service is 5 years experience on the post of Junior Engineer, excluding the training period. Thus, the petitioners without challenging the said amendment incorporated in the Rule straightaway approached this Court by challenging the legality and validity of the advertisement dated 22-8-2024 and hence they cannot be permitted to challenge advertisement because the same has been issued purely within the four corners of the prescribed rules. 9. It is noteworthy to mention here that though the aforesaid rules framed in the year 2023 itself, however, owing to some clerical error in the earlier advertisement dated 11/03/2024, the exclusion of the training period has not been mentioned and only mentioned the minimum qualifying service as “five years regular service in the post of Junior Engineer in the Power Companies”. Looking to the said facts, the respondents’ authorities firstly cancelled the 22 advertisement dated 11/3/2024 and thereafter issued the impugned advertisement dated 22/08/2024 specifically mentioning the minimum qualifying service as “5 years of regular service from the date of regularization in the post of Junior Engineer (T&D) in respective power companies excluding the training period” 10. It is not the case of the petitioners the Rules are changed in the midway of the game. In fact, the rules itself framed in the year 2023 by excluding the training period, however, due to clerical error the said fact has not been published in the first advertisement dated 11/03/2024. However, immediately after knowing about the said anomaly, the authorities cancelled the advertisement dated 11/03/2024 and issued the fresh advertisement on 22/08/2024, wherein the minimum qualifying service has properly prescribed pursuant to the Rules framed by the Electricity Company. The petitioners have never questioned the legality and validity of the amended Rules dated 23- 8-2023. 11. It is well settled proposition of law that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. 12. The Supreme Court in Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Others, reported in 2008 (9) SCC 177 held thus : 23 35. It is by now a certain law that an action to be taken in a particular manner as provided by a statute, must be taken, done or performed in the manner prescribed and in no other manner. In this connection we may appropriately refer to the decision of this Court in Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala wherein it was held as under: (SCC pp. 432-33, paras 31-32) “31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor who stated as under: (IA pp. 381-82) ‘where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.’ 32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindh Pradesh and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan. These cases were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognized as a salutary principle of 24 administrative law.” 13. In National Institute of Technology v. U. Dinakar and Another (2014) 13 SCC 180, it has been held that the competent authority has inherent power to correct the mistake, if any, committed. 14. The statutory authority is entitled to frame the statutory rules laying down the terms and conditions of service as also the qualifications essential for holding a particular post. It is only the authority concerned which can take ultimate decision, therefore, this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordinarily do not direct an employer to prescribe a qualification/experience for holding a particular post. 15. The essential qualification/experience for appointment/promotion 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 on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive rewriting 25 of the advertisement/notification. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement/notification and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement/ notification 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/ notification contrary to the plain language of the same. 16. It is noteworthy to mention here that prescription of educational qualification/ experience for a post is the sole prerogative of the employer and merely because a candidate is not having that qualification/experience for the said post and he/she is finding difficult to appear in the selection process for the particular post for want of desired details, the experience/ qualification so prescribed in the relevant rules cannot be struck down unless it is manifestly arbitrary or discriminatory or violative to the provisions of the Constitution of India that too in a writ petition where the same is not under challenge. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the impugned advertisement is either violative of the 26 provisions of the Constitution of India or violative of Article 14/16 of the Constitution of India or it suffers from manifest arbitrariness and it has not been shown to be discriminatory. 17. It is a well settled law that if the rules/notifications/amendments are made for general good, causes hardship to an individual, the same could not be a ground for striking down the Rules. The Rules/notification framed are valid and do not suffer from any vice of unreasonableness. (See: R.N. Goyal v Ashwani Kumar Gupta and Others, (2004) 11 SCC 753). 18. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to mention here that during the course of arguments, it is transpired that most of the petitioners joined the service on the post of Junior Engineer (Trainee) in the year 2018 and thereafter, they have been given regular appointment as Junior Engineer (T&D) in the month of September, 2019. If we compute the dates for completion of five year of regulation service, most of the petitioners have completed the said period of service in the month of September, 2024. According to the advertisement dated 22/08/2024, which is under challenge in these petitions, the last date for submission of the application form is 30/08/2024. Thus, there is only few days left to complete the requisite period of five years regular service. 27 19. This Court by order dated 29/08/2024 granted the interim order in the following terms:- “Prayer made in this writ petition is for staying the effect and operation of impugned advertisement dated 22.08.2024. This Court however, is not inclined to do that. However, while striking the balance and keeping in mind that the interest of justice is not defeated, this Court is inclined to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to fill up the requisite form and appear in the examination for departmental promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Of course, they shall not declare the result of the said examination without the leave of this Court. Declarations of their result would depend on the fate of this petition. Order accordingly. Interim application is thus disposed of. It is clarified that this order would restrict itself only to the petitioner and would not create any right in favour of anyone else.” 20. Pursuant to the aforesaid interim order, all the petitioners submitted their respective application forms and participated in the examination for departmental promotion to the post Assistant Engineer and the result of the same kept pending. 21. In view of the aforesaid facts and 28 circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice as only few days were left to complete the requisite period of regular service and particularly considering the fact that the petitioners are employees of the Electricity Company and have gained the experience in the said department, the respondents’ authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioners and they be extended the benefit of relaxation in completing the requisite period of regular service on the feeder post and thereafter, publish the result of examination of the departmental examination to the post of Assistant Engineer- Trainee (T&D), within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 22. With the aforesaid observations, all the writ petitions stands disposed of. ” 17. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge erred in issuing directions for relaxation of the essential eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement dated 22/082024, which was framed strictly in accordance with the applicable recruitment Rules and policy decisions reflected in the resolutions of the years 2018 and 2023. 18. The condition requiring a minimum of five years of regular service as Junior Engineer (T&D), excluding the period spent as Junior 29 Engineer (Trainee), is neither arbitrary nor in conflict with any statutory or constitutional provision. On the contrary, it reflects a consistent and rational standard that has been applied in previous recruitments as well. The training period, during which the writ petitioners were paid a fixed stipend and were not holding a substantive or probationary appointment, cannot be counted toward regular service experience in the cadre of Junior Engineer (T&D). 19. Furthermore, once the learned Single Judge held, in para 8 of the impugned order, that the advertisement was issued strictly within the four corners of the applicable Rules, it was not open to the Court to thereafter direct a relaxation of the same rules selectively for a particular group of 47 candidates. Such a direction is not only beyond the permissible scope of judicial review in service jurisprudence, but also causes unjustified discrimination against other similarly situated candidates (approximately 85 in number), who had abided by the advertisement terms and chose not to apply due to ineligibility. The principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution mandates uniform treatment and not selective indulgence. 20. It is a settled principle that framing of eligibility criteria and prescription of cut-off dates are matters within the domain of the employer, and unless it is shown that such conditions are manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of any 30 constitutional mandate, the Court ought not to interfere. In the present cases, no such illegality, mala fide, or procedural irregularity has been demonstrated by the writ petitioners. As such, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge for extending the benefit of eligibility relaxation to the writ petitioners are unsustainable in law. 21. However, in the interest of fairness, it is directed that in case any of the writ petitioners, as per the original advertisement dated 22/08/2024 and the governing Rules, now come within the zone of consideration, either by way of completing five years’ of regular service or otherwise fulfilling all eligibility criteria as on the prescribed cut-off date, their candidatures shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the pendency of litigation or dismissal of the writ petitions. 22. In light of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the learned Single Judge erred in granting relaxation to the writ petitioners (private respondents herein) contrary to the express provisions of the applicable recruitment Rules and the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement dated 22/08/2024. The observation made in paragraph 21 of the impugned order dated 25.04.2025 passed in WPS No.5228/2024 and analogous cases, which confers such relaxation, is thus unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. 23. Consequently, the writ appeals are partly allowed to the extent 31 indicated hereinabove. However, the remaining part of the impugned order shall remain intact. The appellants/authorities are directed to proceed with the selection process strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 22/08/2024 and in compliance with the applicable recruitment Rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Anu