1 2025:CGHC:41682-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 614 of 2025 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Employment Training Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Secretary, Department of General Adminstration Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Director Directorate of Employment and Training Indrawati Bhawan, Block - 4 First Floor, New Raipur District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. The Joint Director (Training) Industrial Training Institute Raipur District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Neelam Mashih Tigga S/o Imanual Tigga Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Chherghodhra, Tahsil Kansabel, District – Jashpur, Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Quarter No. H- 2/14 Housing Board Colony Lidri P.S. Takhatpur, District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) Through Secretary, Vyapm Bhawan, North Block Sector- 19, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.08.19 17:44:12 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19 .08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellants as well as Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2 on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 167 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants/State against the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 8158 of 2024 (Neelam Mashih Tigga vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed off the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner herein. 3 4. Learned State counsel submits that in the original writ petition, bearing WPS No. 8158 of 2024, respondent No. 1/writ petitioner had assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 (Annexure P/1 in the writ petition), whereby his candidature was rejected on the ground that his age was 41 years as on 01.01.2023, which exceeded the prescribed maximum age limit. 5. It is contended by the learned State counsel that appellant No. 2 had issued an advertisement on 05.05.2023 for recruitment to the post of Training Officer in 23 streams. The respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, being qualified, applied, appeared in the written examination, was declared successful, and was called for verification of documents. Despite his participation in document verification, his appointment order was not issued on the ground that he was 41 years old, and in terms of condition No. 5(ii) of the advertisement, was overage. 6. Learned State counsel further submits that respondent No. 1/writ petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe “Urav” community. However, under the advertisement, a separate provision was made for permanent/temporary/work-charged/contingency-paid employees of the State, prescribing a maximum age of 38 years. Since the respondent was above 38 years, his candidature was rightly rejected. He further contended that fixation of maximum age for entry into government service, even for employees serving on contract, lies within the domain of the General Administration Department. Reliance is placed on Circular No. F 3-2/2002/1-3 dated 30.01.2012, issued under Rule 5 of 4 the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2004, (for short, ‘Rules of 2004’) which provides that contractual employees may serve for five years, and though their service is counted for relaxation, the maximum ceiling remains 38 years. Reference is also made to Circular No. 314/CR/102/1(3) dated 19.04.1973, fixing the maximum age at 38 years for temporary/permanent employees. It is contended that the learned Single Judge erred in applying a conjoint reading of Rule 8(I)(b) and (I)(d), since the specific rule governing contractual/temporary employees prescribes an absolute upper limit of 38 years without relaxation for caste category. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge, after considering all aspects, has rightly disposed off the writ petition and no interference is warranted. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Rule 8(I)(b) provides that the upper age limit shall be relaxable by five years for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and O.B.C. (Non-Creamy Layer). Rule 8(I)(c) provides relaxation up to ten years for women candidates. A conjoint reading of Rule 8(I)(b) and Rule 8(I)(d) makes it clear that a candidate holding a temporary or permanent post with the State of Chhattisgarh, applying for another post, should not be more than 38 years of age; however, candidates belonging to SC, ST or OBC categories are entitled to an additional 5 relaxation of five years. Both the Rules and the advertisement further stipulate that even after all permissible relaxations, the maximum age shall not exceed 45 years. Thus, a reserved category candidate is entitled to the same relaxation available to a general category candidate plus an additional five years’ relaxation on account of his caste. 10. In the present case, the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, being a member of the Scheduled Tribe community, was entitled to such relaxation, and therefore, rejection of his candidature solely on the ground of age was unsustainable. The learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the rejection and directed the authorities to consider his claim for appointment to the post of Training Officer. 11. Considering the pleadings in the writ appeal, submissions of the parties, and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error has been committed warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan