Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:45451 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10426 of 2025 1 - Manoj Kumar S/o Ramdhan Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Premnagar Bhairtoll, Kusmunda Korba (C.G.) 2 - Yadram Banjare S/o Tularam Banjare Aged About 30 Years R/o Kehrabhat Post- Office, Dhurkot, Tehsil- Dabhra, Dist- Sakti, 3 - Tulsi Prashad Kaushik S/o Chudamani Koushik Aged About 27 Years R/o Janjgir- Champa, Dist- Janjgir (C.G.) versus ... Petitioners 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Mining Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Chhattisgarh, 2 - Director Directorate of Geology And Mining Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Secretary Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners For State-Respondents
Legal Reasoning
of this Court in WPS No.2966 of 2025 vide order dated 30-04-2025. In the said writ petition the validity of the amendment in the Rules, 2008 vide notification dated 13- 03-2024 is upheld and the writ petition of the petitioners therein has been dismissed. The same set of petitioners who are petitioners in WPS No.2966 of 2025 have also filed another writ petition, before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court challenging the amendment notification dated 13-03-2024, corrigendum dated 02- 04-2025 and the said writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06-05-2025 and thus, the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been decided by the learned coordinate Bench of this Court and the present writ petition is also liable to be dismissed. 4 Learned counsel for the State also supported the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 5. Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the order dated 30-04-2025 passed in WPS No.2966 of 2025 and also the order dated 06-05-2025 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in WPS No.3201 of 2025, it transpires that the issue involved in the present writ petition is also identical to that of those writ petitions which have been filed in the aforesaid writ petitions. In the WPS No.2966 of 2025 learned coordinate Bench of this Court has held in paras 6 to 11 that:- “6. Clause (2)(B)(iii)(a) of the initial advertisement dated 2-2-2022 reads as under :- 4 (2) xxx (B) xxx (iii) xxx (a) “Hkw-foKku lfgr foKku esa Lukrd mikf/k vFkok ekbfuax bathfu;fjax esa i=ksaikf/kA” 7. Perusal of corrigendum reveals that the Clause (2)(B)(iii)(a) has been amended by prescribing educational qualification as "Hkw-foKku esa Lukrd mikf/k vFkok ekbfuax bathfu;fjax esa Lukrd mikf/kA ” (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, fort he 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 5 change of rule of game. Once the Service 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.” 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the
Arguments
: Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate. : Mr. S. Choubey, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.3 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.09.06 18:16:18 +0530 04-09-2025 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition claiming following relief(s):- 2 “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the advertisement, staying the selection process and file relating to amendment notified on 13/03/2024. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned corrigendum dt. 02/04/2025, issued by the Respondent Public Service Commission for withdrawing candidature of the Diploma holders in Mining Engineering, by misinterpreting the amendment carried out by notification dated 13/03/2024. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to allow Petitioners to participate in the direct recruitment examination of Mining Inspectors to be held on 07/09/2025. 10.4 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which deem fits by this Hon’ble Court.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that they are holding diploma in Mining Engineering. Respondent No.3 published and advertisement on 02-02-2022 for recruitment to the for recruitment to the post of Mining Inspectors and as per the advertisement the requisite essential qualification for Mining Inspector was Graduation in Science having Geology as one subject or Diploma in Mining Engineering. However, vide order dated 09-03-2022 the advertisement with respect to the post of Mining Inspector was stayed by the Department and thereafter, the Chhattisgarh (Class III Executive, Geology and Mining Service Recruitment) Rules, 2008 (in short ‘the Rules, 2008’)’ is amended on 13-03-2024 and the requisite minimum qualification for the post of Mining Inspector was changed as Bachelor degree in Mining Engineering in place of Diploma in Mining Engineering. He would further submit that once the advertisement has been published, the conditions of requisite qualification cannot be changed after the amendment in the requisite qualification in the Rules, 2008 which was given retrospective effect and a corrigendum has been issued on 02-04-2025 whereby the advertisement with respect the Mining Inspector has been amended by which the 3 Graduation in Mining Engineering is inserted in place of Diploma in Mining Engineering as the requisite qualification for the same. He would also submit that the amendment in the Rules cannot be given retrospective effect and it should always be prospective, yet the authorities have given it retrospective effect which is against the settled law and therefore, the petitioners have challenged the amendment notified on 13-03-2024 in the Rules, 2008 and also the corrigendum issued on 02-04-2025 and prayed for permission to participate in the direct recruitment examination of Mining Inspectors to be held on 07-09-2025. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would submit that the issue raised in the present writ petition has been decided by the learned coordinate Bench
Decision
issue involved in the present case as well as in the writ petition WPS No.2966 of 2025, this Court is of the opinion that the issue has already been decided by the learned coordinate Bench of this Court and this Court is not inclined to take a view other than what has been taken in WPS No.2966 of 2025, decided on 30-04-2025. Accordingly, the present writ petition is also dismissed in the same terms. Aadil Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge