Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.08.02 11:01:44 +0530 2025:CGHC:37432-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 543 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., Division Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.4) --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Abhishek Tiwari S/o Shri Hemant Kumar Tiwari Aged About 32 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Motiram Gali, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.1) 2 - Madhu Thakur D/o Shri R.R. Thakur Aged About 33 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Dindayal Aawas Colony, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 2) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) For Respondent(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate 2 WA No. 558 of 2025 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through Its General Manager, Danganiya 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 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) --- Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Anant Kumar Shrivastava S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Shrivastava, Aged About 29 Years R/o Pwd 75, Police Line, Sector 6, Ward No 48, Civic Centre Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate WA No. 352 of 2025 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through Its General Manager, Danganiya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 2 - Additional Chief Engineer (Hr) Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Division Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deputy General Manager (Hr) Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Deputy General Manager (Hr) 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) (Hr), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Division Danganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Akshay Diwan S/o Shri Apoorwa Diwan Aged About 34 Years R/o Apporva Sadan, Om Society Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) For Respondent(s) : : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate WA No. 427 of 2025 1 - Shaikh Shahab S/o Sheikh Ayur Aged About 35 Years R/o Near J.B.C. Sunrise School, Vijay Nagar, Devrikhurd, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sohhrab Khan S/o Jamil Khan Aged About 32 Years R/o Qtr, No. 1-D, Street No. 12, Sector -8, Bhilai, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) Versus 4 1 - Rakesh Rathore S/o Lt. Siyaram Rathore Aged About 33 Years R/o H. No. 47 Surya Vihar Behind Basant Vatika, Lingiyadih, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Through Its General Manager, Danganiya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Additional Chief Engineer (Hr), Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Division Dangniya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Deputy General Manager (Hr) - Ii Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Dangniya District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Deputy General Manager (Hr)-Ii, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Dangniya District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Division Dangniya District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Additional Chief Engineer (Hr), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Division Dangniya District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) For Respondent(s) : : None Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate & Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate WA No. 443 of 2025 1 - Akshay Diwan S/o Apoorwa Diwan Aged About 34 Years R/o Apoorwa Sadan, Om Society Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Through Its General Manager, Dangniya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Additional Chief Engineer (Hr), Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd, Division Dangniya District Raipur (C.G.) 5 3 - Deputy General Manager (Hr)-Ii Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd Dangniya District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Deputy General Manager (Hr)-Ii Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd Dangniya District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd Division Dangniya District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Additional Chief Engineer (Hr) Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd Division Dangniya District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) For Respondent(s) : : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate WA No. 446 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 Dangniya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deputy General Manager (Hr) - Ii Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Dangniya District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Deputy General Manager (Hr)-Ii Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Dangniya District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Division Dangniya District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Additional Chief Engineer (Hr), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Division Dangniya District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) 6 Versus 1 - Rakesh Rathore S/o Late Shri Siyaram Rathore Aged About 33 Years R/o H. No. 47 Surya Vihar Behind Basant Vatika, Lingiyadih, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) For Respondent(s) : : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge 31 .07.2025 1. Heard I. A. No. 01/2025 in W.A. No. 558/2025 & WA No. 443/2025 and I. A. No. 02/2025 in WA No. 543/2025 & WA No. 446/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. On due consideration, the I. A. No. 01/2025 in W.A. No. 558/2025 & WA No. 443/2025 and I. A. No. 02/2025 in WA No. 543/2025 & WA No. 446/2025 are allowed. The delay in filing the aforesaid writ appeals are condoned. 2. The WA No. 543/2025 has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5567/2024 (Abhishek Tiwari & Another Vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited & Ors). 3. The WA No. 558/2025 has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5343/2024 (Anant Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited & Ors). 7 4. The WA No. 352/2025 has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5318/2024 (Akshay Diwan Vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited & Ors). 5. The WA No. 427/2025 has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 25.04.2025 in WPS No. 5228/2024 (Rakesh Rathore Vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited & Ors). In the present writ appeal, the present appellants were not the party respondents
Decision
in the writ petition, however, they had filed an application for intervention in the writ petition and after passing of the order by the learned Single Judge, they preferred the present writ appeal along with an application for seeking permission to file writ appeal and challenged the impugned order. In the application, they claimed that they were the junior engineers, working in the department and participated in recruitment process and appeared in the written test and by the order passed by learned Single Judge, a direction has been made in the impugned order to CSPTCL to consider the claim of the petition for appointment on the promotional post which may affect the chance of the appellants, therefore, they have filed the writ appeal. 6. The WA No. 443/2025 has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5318/2024 (Akshay Diwan Vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited & Ors) who was the petitioner in that writ petition. 7. The WA No. 446/2025 has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5228/2024 (Rakesh Rathore Vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited & Ors). 8 8. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that in some of the identical matters, this Bench has party allowed the Writ Appeal No. 504/2025 (Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited & Ors. Vs. Mukund Madhav Singh Kanwar and other batch of writ appeals vide order dated 23.07.2025 observing the following terms:- “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 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 9 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 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. 10 23. Consequently, the writ appeals are partly allowed to the extent 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.” They submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case are identical to that of Writ Appeal No. 504/2025 and other batch of writ appeals, these appeals may be disposed of in the same terms. 9. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in these appeals are identical to Writ Appeal No. 504/2025 and other batch of writ appeals decided on 23.07.2025, hence, this Court deems it appropriate, not to take a view other than what has been taken in Writ Appeal No. 504/2025 and other batch of writ appeals. 10. Accordingly, WA No. No. 543/2025, WA No. 558/2025, WA No. 352/2025 and WA No. 446/2025 are partly allowed in terms of the order dated 23.07.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No. 504/2025 (Chhattsgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited & Ors. Vs. Mukund Madhav Singh Kanwar ) and other batch of writ appeals. 11. Since, this Court has already taken a view in Para 21 & 22 of the order dated 23.07.2025 passed in WA No. 504/2025 and other batch of petitions that the learned Single Judge erred in granting relaxation to the writ petitioners contrary to the express provisions of the applicable recruitment Rules and the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement dated 22.08.2024, the WA No. 443/2025 is dismissed. 11 Since, the writ appellants in the WA No. 427/2025 are intervener in WPS No. 5228/2024 and against the order passed in WPS No. 5228/2024 i.e. WA No. 446/2025 has already been disposed of in terms of the order dated 23.07.2025 passed in WA No. 504/2025 and therefore, the WA No. 427/2025 is also dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika