Rakesh Rathore vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd

Ramesh Sinha, CJ

The matter is listed in default as the application for condonation of delay along with the supporting affidavit has not been filed along with other defects.

However, since the present writ appeal is identical to Writ Appeal No. 540 of 2025, which was dismissed by order dated 23.07.2025, the present appeal is taken up for hearing.

In view of the above, the defects pointed out by the Registry are hereby waived.

Heard Mr. Ishan Verma, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the respondents, on the question of delay of 14 days in filing the appeal.

Considering that the matter is identical to Writ Appeal No. 540 of 2025, the delay of 14 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.5228/2024, 5321/2024, 5317/2024, 5319/2024, 5320/2024, 5262/2024 and 5343/2024 whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners therein before the learned Single Judge has been disposed of.

It has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that in some of the identical matters, this Bench has partly 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 as follows :-

“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.

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).

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.

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 mconditions 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.

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.

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.

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, this appeal may also be disposed of in the same terms.

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal 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.

Since, this Court has already taken a view in Para 21 & 22 of the order dated 23.07.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No. 504/2025 and other batch of appeals 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 present appeal is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.