1 2025:CGHC:24898-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3956 of 2025 Ashish Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Brij Kumar Sahu, aged about 33 years, resident of Dhebar City Road, Avadh Puri, Bhatagaon, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industry, Directorate Of Industries, Udyog Bhawan Ring Road No.1, Telibandha, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. For Respondent No.2/PSC : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17 . 06 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 General, appearing for the State / respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr.Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 / PSC. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :- “a) issue a writ, order or direction, moreover in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned advertisement and the rule and issue the direction to Respondent to amend the present advertisement to the extent to include the subject of art under the minimum qualification required for taking the exam. b) Issue an appropriate writ, thereby declaring the Rule 8 Schedule-III Column No. 5 of Chhattisgarh State Industries (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1985 brought in by notification dated 08.02.2007, which was issued in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, as ultra vires to Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. c) pass any other order(s) that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 / PSC published an advertisement for direct recruitment for the post of Assistant Director, Industry/Manager (Department of Commerce and Industry) by the advertisement No. 01/2025/Examination/ dated 03.03.2025 and the same was published on 05.03.2025, whereby they notified a total of 30 posts. The said advertisement provided various information regarding the examination, including 3 but not limited to the tentative date of preliminary examination and mains examination, the date of filling the form of the exam etc. As per point 2(iv) of the advertisement, the essential qualification required for the examination is-Bachelor's degree in Engineering in any discipline or a Postgraduate degree in Industrial Chemistry, Commerce, Economics, Physics, or Chemistry, or an MBA/PGDM (AICTE approved) from a recognized institution. 4. From the prayers and pleadings made in the writ petition, it is revealed that following are the core grudges of the petitioner : “(i) The requisite educational qualification provided under Clause 2(iv) of the Advertisement for candidate applying for the posts advertised is not suited to petitioner's educational qualification i.e., "Arts graduates" therefore the same are liable to be amended. (ii) The qualification namely "or MBA/PGDM (AICTE) From Recognized Institute" is beyond the scope provided in Schedule III Rule 8 of the Chhattisgarh State Industries (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1985. (iii) Rule 8 of Schedule-III Column N-5 of the Chhattisgarh State Industries (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1985 declare ultra vires to article 309 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that exclusion of Arts graduates from eligibility for the post of Assistant Director (Industry/Management) amounts to an unreasonable classification, which lacks intelligible differentia and bears no 4 rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. He further submitted that the Schedule III, Rule 8 of the Chhattisgarh State Industries (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1985 prescribes the essential educational qualification for the post of Assistant Director, Industry/Manager (Department of Commerce and Industry) as a degree from a recognized university in Electrical, Electronics, Metallurgical, Industrial or Chemical Engineering, or in Industrial Chemistry, Commerce, Economics, Physics, or Chemistry, with Electronics as a special subject. However, the impugned advertisement dated 03.03.2025 deviates from the statutory prescription by expanding the eligibility to include a Bachelor's degree in Engineering in any discipline and a postgraduate degree in Industrial Chemistry, Commerce, Economics, Physics, or Chemistry, as well as an MBA/PGDM (AICTE approved). This modification in qualification criteria is beyond the scope of the parent recruitment rules and amounts to an unauthorized and impermissible deviation from the statutory framework. Therefore, the impugned advertisement suffers from a clear violation of the extant recruitment rules and is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. He also submitted that the petitioner has completed his B.A. Part-III from Pt. Ravishankar University, Raipur and he is being deprived from participating in the selection and recruitment process for the post of Assistant Director, Industry/Manager (Department of Commerce and Industry). 5 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel, appearing for respondent-PSC opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that the requisite education qualification provided under Clause 2(iv) of the Advertisement for candidates with consonance of the departmental rules as amended from time to time i.e. Notification dated 29.06.2015 wherein in Column-5 the education qualifications for the post of Assistant Director of Industries / Manager has been prescribed as “Degree in Engineering from any discipline” or “Post Graduation degree in Industrial Chemistry, Commerce, Economics, Physics, Chemistry” or “MBA/PGDM (AICTE) from recognized Institute”, where as the petitioner is holding only a B.A. degree from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University and lacking the essential qualification prescribed as aforementioned. They further submitted the last date of submission of applications was initially 08.04.2025 and extended to 25.04.2025 vide Corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 whereas the petitioner the approached this Court on 02.05.2025 after closure of filling of online application without challenging or annexing the Amended Notification dated 29.06.2015, therefore, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. From perusal of the prayers and pleadings made in the writ 6 petition and further taking into consideration the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner it transpires that the petitioner is holding only a B.A. degree from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University and the requisite educational qualification for the post of Assistant Director of Industries / Manager has been amended vide Notification dated 29.06.2015 and the present petition has been filed by the petitioner without challenging the said notification or without annexing the same that to after closure of the filling of online application for his grudges. 9. 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 therefor. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordinarily do not direct an employer to prescribe a qualification for holding a particular post. 10. The essential qualifications for appointment 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 of the advertisement/notification. 7 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. 11. It is noteworthy to mention here that prescription of educational qualification for a post is the sole prerogative of the employer and merely because a candidate is not having that qualification for the said post and he/she is finding difficult to appear in the selection process for the particular post for want of desired educational qualification, the educational 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. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the impugned notice and the Rules are either violative of the 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. 12. It is a well settled law that if the rules/notifications/amendments 8 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 reported in (2004) 11 SCC 753). 13. Applying the well settled principles of law and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, we do not find any good ground for interference in the present petition. 14. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra