1 / 6 2025:CGHC:19636 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2955 of 2025 1 - Chandrakant Mahendra S/o Shri Bhupendra Kumar Mahendra Aged About 22 Years R/o Sitanagar, Gogaon, Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Maneesh S/o Shri Shivram Aged About 23 Years R/o Village And Post - Rudgaon, Block - Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 3 - Sachin Deshmukh S/o Shri Hemlal Deshmukh Aged About 23 Years R/o Bajrangpara, Jamul Ward No. 6, Durg District - Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Poshan S/o Shri Doman Lal Aged About 22 Years R/o Village And Post - Fekari, Block - Patan, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Anurag Tiwari S/o Shri Saradchandra Tiwari Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Devbhog, Block - Devbhog District - Gariyabandh Chhattisgarh 6 - Prashant Pandey S/o Shri Chandrakant Pandey Aged About 23 Years R/o Nagari District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 7 - Durgesh Kumar S/o Shri Gangaram Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Parasbod, Post - Barhapur, Block - Dhamdha District - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.05.03 12:11:10 +0530 2 / 6 versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Mineral Resource Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Under Secretary, Mineral Resource Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Chairman, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 30/04/2025 1. By way of the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners are seeking a direction towards the respondents’ authority to allow them to participate in the examination by shifting the cut-off date in respect of the age limit to the date of 01/01/2025 after amending Clause 4 of the advertisement dated 02/02/2022 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the minimum age limit was set out as 21 years as on 01/01/2022. 2. Facts of the case in the nutshell is that Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission1 has published an advertisement on 1 The PSC 3 / 6 02/02/2022, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for certain posts mentioned in the advertisement (Annexure-P/1). The minimum age for applying was prescribed in the said advertisement as 21 years as on 01/01/2022, whereas the upper age limit was prescribed as 30 years with certain relaxation subject to the fulfillment of requirement. Subsequently, vide Corrigendum dated 02/04/2025 one of the condition mentioned at Clause (2)(B)(iii)(a) in the advertisement dated 02/02/2022 was changed to "भू- वि्ሺान में स्नातक उपाधि अथा माइिሪनग इंजीविनयिሲग में स्नातक ” उपाधि , which was earlier as “भू- वि्ሺान सवित वि्ሺान में स्नातक उपाधि ” अथा माइिሪनग इंजीविनयिሲग में प्ቔोंपाधि . The petitioners, herein, after finding themselves as eligible on the basis of subsequent corrigendum has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents’ authority to shift the cut-off date from 01/01/2022 to 01/01/2025, so that they may apply in the said advertisement. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though by the impugned advertisement dated 02/02/2022, the minimum criteria of age was set out as 21 years as on 01/01/2022, but due to the corrigendum issued on 02/04/2025 with changing conditions to fill up the forms for certain posts, the petitioners who have attained the age of 21 years as on the date of corrigendum and having Graduation in Mining Engineering, should be allowed to fill up the form and participate in the examination. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Corrigendum dated 02/04/2025, which the petitioners have referred to, only speaks about modification of certain condition in 4 / 6 education qualification. As per the said corrigendum, it has been directed that in clause (2)(B)(iii)(a) of the advertisement dated 02/02/2022 (Annexure-P/1), the education qualification i.e. “भू- ” वि्ሺान सवित वि्ሺान में स्नातक उपाधि अथा माइिሪनग इंजीविनयिሲग में प्ቔोंपाधि shall be read as "भू- वि्ሺान में स्नातक उपाधि अथा माइिሪनग इंजीविनयिሲग में ” स्नातक उपाधि . Thus, it is clear that it was issued only for correction/modification of the said education qualification, but not to change any other condition like age limit. Learned counsel would submit that in the corrigendum all the other conditions, which were earlier mentioned in the impugned advertisement have been kept intact, as such, the petitioners may not be allowed to fill up the form or to participate in the examination. Reliance has been placed upon Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. v. Preeti Balyan & Anr.2, Therefore, the petition is not maintainable. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned advertisement dated 02/02/2022 (Annexure-P/1) as well as corrigendum dated 02/04/2025. 6. There is no dispute that as on 01/01/2022, the petitioners were below the lower limit of age i.e. 21 years on the date of issuance of the impugned advertisement. It is the case of the petitioners that since the Corrigendum dated 02/04/2025 has been issued with certain modification, the cut-off date to apply for the posts as published in the impugned advertisement, should be shifted from 01/01/2022 to 01/01/2025, so that, they may become eligible for 2 In WPC No. 3397/2012 (decided on 06/02/2013) 5 / 6 applying for the subject post. 7. This Court after going through the advertisement dated 02/02/2022 (Annexure-P/1) finds that for applying to the posts mentioned in Annexure-P/1, the lower age limit of 21 years and upper age limit of 30 years as on 01/01/2022 were prescribed to fill up the forms. As such, the candidates who were below the prescribed lower limit of age i.e. 21 years were not eligible to apply or to fill up the form. Certainly, there was some age relaxation in the upper age limit, subject to fulfillment of certain requirement. 8. Subsequently, the PSC issued the Corrigendum on 02/04/2025 for modification in education qualification mentioned at clause (2)(B) (iii)(a) of the advertisement dated 02/02/2022 (Annexure-P/1). The modification was in education qualification only i.e. the education qualification i.e. “भू- वि्ሺान सवित वि्ሺान में स्नातक उपाधि अथा ” माइिሪनग इंजीविनयिሲग में प्ቔोंपाधि shall be read as "भू- वि्ሺान में स्नातक उपाधि ” अथा माइिሪनग इंजीविनयिሲग में स्नातक उपाधि . It was cleared in the Corrigendum that all the conditions mentioned in the advertisement dated 02/02/2022 shall remain unaltered. 9. Thus, the Corrigendum has not given any relaxation with respect to the age, therefore, this Court is the opinion that the vacancies have to be filled up from amongst the eligible candidates pertaining to the year of the vacancy for the reasons that if the cut-off date to apply is shifted to the date of issuance of the corrigendum, then the candidates who had applied for the posts at the age of 28 or 29 years, at the time of issuance of impugned 6 / 6 advertisement, would become ineligible. If for some reasons the selection process is postponed, only those who were eligible in the year of the vacancy should be considered. 10. Accordingly, the contention of the petitioners, to shift the eligibility cut-off date from 01/01/2022 to 01/01/2025 would amount to modifying the track and as a result making ineligible many candidates who now have crossed the age of 30 years as of now, cannot be accepted. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any substance in this Writ Petition and, therefore, the Writ Petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar