1 2025:CGHC:52369-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 759 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.) ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Mining Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, 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 Appellants : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No.3 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 28.10 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.10.28 15:07:11 +0530 2 2 as well as Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):- “a) allow this Writ Appeal, and b) Set aside the final order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in WP(S) No. 10426 of 2025, and c) Pass an order quashing the corrigendum issued by PSC on 02/04/2025 and consequent selection process; and d) Pass an order restraining the respondent PSC from conducting interview as the selection process is vitiated due to applying amendment dt. 13/03/2024 with retrospective effect in advertisement dt. 02/02/2022; and e) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.10426/2025 (Manoj Kumar and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge has been dismissed. 4. Brief facts as projected before the learned Single Judge are that the petitioners are holding Diplomas in Mining Engineering. 3 Respondent No.3 published an advertisement on 02.02.2022 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Mining Inspectors, wherein the requisite essential qualification prescribed was Graduation in Science having Geology as one of the subjects or Diploma in Mining Engineering. However, vide order dated 09.03.2022, the said advertisement insofar as it related to the post of Mining Inspector was stayed by the Department. Subsequently, the Chhattisgarh (Class III Executive, Geology and Mining Service Recruitment) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 2008") were amended on 13.03.2024, whereby the minimum qualification for the post of Mining Inspector was altered to Bachelor’s Degree in Mining Engineering in place of Diploma in Mining Engineering. It is the case of the petitioners that once an advertisement has been published, the conditions of eligibility or requisite qualification cannot be altered by way of an amendment given retrospective effect. 5. Pursuant to the said amendment, a corrigendum dated 02.04.2025 was issued modifying the earlier advertisement and substituting the qualification of Graduation in Mining Engineering in place of Diploma in Mining Engineering. The petitioners contend that such retrospective operation of the amended Rules is contrary to the settled legal position that amendments affecting eligibility must operate prospectively. Hence, the petitioners have challenged both the amendment notified on 13.03.2024 to the Rules, 2008, and the corrigendum dated 02.04.2025, while also 4 seeking permission to participate in the direct recruitment examination for the post of Mining Inspectors scheduled to be held on 07.09.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to properly appreciate the facts and law governing the case. It is submitted that an advertisement was issued on 02.02.2022 by the Mineral Resources Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, inviting applications for 35 vacant posts of Mining Inspector, wherein the minimum qualification prescribed was Bachelor’s Degree in Science with Geology as one of the subjects or Diploma in Mining Engineering, as per the then prevailing Chhattisgarh (Class III Executive, Geology and Mining Services Recruitment) Rules, 2008. The appellants, being duly qualified, submitted their online applications through the official website of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (PSC). B. It is contended that as the last date for submission of applications was 16.03.2022, any amendment carried out subsequently in the year 2024, altering the qualification for the post, and the corrigendum issued on 02.04.2025, amount to a change in the rules after the game has begun, which is impermissible in law. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the amendment to the minimum qualification for the post of Mining Inspector, made in 2024, is an afterthought. Had the State genuinely intended to 5 change the qualification criteria, it would not have issued the advertisement dated 02.02.2022. The State took nearly three years after the advertisement to amend the Rules, which clearly shows lack of bona fides. It is further argued that the amendment dated 13.03.2024 was expressly given prospective effect, as stated in the Gazette Notification itself. Hence, it cannot be applied to an advertisement published in 2022, which was governed by the unamended Rules. The learned counsel contends that applying the amendment retrospectively has the effect of curtailing the petitioners’ vested right to participate in the examination and be considered for appointment under the advertisement dated 02.02.2022. This, according to the appellants, violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as the principles enshrined under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 8. It is further submitted that the Public Service Commission issued the corrigendum dated 02.04.2025, more than three years after the last date of submission of applications, and has sought to apply the amended qualification retrospectively, without cancelling the original advertisement. It is submitted that had the original advertisement been cancelled, only then could the amended Rules be made applicable in a fresh selection process. Learned counsel also submits that the issuance of the corrigendum in 2025 has caused grave prejudice to the petitioners, who had already invested substantial time, effort, and resources in preparing for 6 the examination under the 2022 advertisement, thereby depriving them of a fair opportunity of selection. It is further submitted that the Public Health Engineering Department of the same State continues to recognize Diploma holders in Mining Engineering as eligible for appointment to the post of Sub-Engineer, which is equivalent in status and grade to that of Mining Inspector. Therefore, the State cannot be permitted to prescribe different qualification criteria for equivalent Class III posts under different departments, as such differentiation is arbitrary and discriminatory. 9. Learned counsel contends that since the writ petitioners applied for the post of Mining Inspector pursuant to the advertisement issued under the existing Rules, 2008, they had acquired a vested right to be considered for selection in accordance with those Rules. The amendment of 2024, not being retrospective, cannot take away this accrued right. It is further argued that it was the pious duty of the Public Service Commission to conduct the examination strictly in accordance with the prevailing Rules. However, in the instant case, the PSC has overreached its authority by misinterpreting the notification dated 13.03.2024 and applying it retrospectively, despite the State not having done so. Learned counsel further submits that there was no reasonable nexus or justification for staying the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 02.02.2022 for more than three years without assigning any valid reason. Keeping 35 posts vacant for 7 such an extended period and thereafter retrospectively altering the eligibility criteria is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 10. Lastly, it is urged that the prolonged stay of the recruitment process for the post of Mining Inspector has adversely affected the functioning of the Department, and the subsequent exclusion of diploma holders through the 2024 amendment cannot be given retrospective effect by any stretch of imagination. The appellants, therefore, submit that the learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating these aspects and in upholding the validity of the amendment and corrigendum. 11. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the amendment to the Chhattisgarh (Class III Executive, Geology and Mining Services Recruitment) Rules, 2008, carried out on 13.03.2024, was made in exercise of the State’s policy decision to enhance the standards and technical competence required for the post of Mining Inspector. It is contended that no vested right accrues to any candidate merely by issuance of an advertisement or submission of an application, and the employer has the authority to amend recruitment rules at any time before the selection process is completed. It is further submitted that the corrigendum dated 02.04.2025 was issued only to bring the recruitment notification in conformity with the amended Rules, and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any right to participate in the examination under the unamended eligibility criteria. The 8 State asserts that the amendment is prospective in nature, but since the recruitment process had not been completed, it was legally permissible to apply the revised qualification to the ongoing selection process. Hence, the learned Single Judge rightly upheld the action of the State and the Public Service Commission. 12. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that the controversy involved in the present appeal is no longer res integra, as the very same issue has already been considered and decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court as well as by this Court. It is pointed out that in WPS No. 2966 of 2025, decided on 30.04.2025, the validity of the amendment made to the Chhattisgarh (Class III Executive, Geology and Mining Services Recruitment) Rules, 2008, by notification dated 13.03.2024, was directly under challenge. After detailed consideration of the rival submissions, the Coordinate Bench upheld the validity of the amendment and dismissed the writ petition, holding that the State is competent to revise the qualification criteria for recruitment in accordance with its policy and administrative requirements. It is further submitted that the same set of petitioners, who were parties in the aforesaid writ petition, have again approached this Court by filing another writ petition being WPS No.3201 of 2025, challenging the amendment notification dated 13.03.2024 as well as the corrigendum dated 02.04.2025, issued by the Public Service Commission. However, that writ petition too was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.05.2025. Therefore, 9 the learned counsel submits that the present proceedings are barred by the principle of judicial finality, as the issue has already been adjudicated upon by a Coordinate Bench and cannot be reagitated under the guise of a fresh challenge. 13. It is also submitted that the Public Service Commission has only acted in compliance with the amended Rules, which are binding on all recruiting authorities. The Commission, being a statutory body, is duty-bound to conduct examinations and selections strictly in accordance with the rules in force on the date of the examination, and not as per any earlier or superseded provisions. Therefore, there is no illegality or arbitrariness in issuing the corrigendum dated 02.04.2025, which merely aligns the recruitment process with the prevailing statutory framework. Accordingly, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, having correctly relied upon the earlier decision of the Coordinate Bench, and no interference is called for in the present appeal. 14. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and carefully considered their rival submissions. 15. We have also perused the record of the case, including the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.10426/2025 as well as the orders dated 30.04.2025 and 06.05.2025 passed in WPS No.2966/2025 and WPS No.3201/2025. 10 16. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties therein as also the materials on record in Writ Petition (S) No.10426/2025, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 04.09.2025, in the following terms:- “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 :- (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 11 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 12 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 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 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.” 13 17. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and on careful examination of the records, it is apparent that the controversy raised in the present writ appeal is no longer res integra. The validity of the amendment dated 13.03.2024 made to the Chhattisgarh (Class III Executive, Geology and Mining Services Recruitment) Rules, 2008 and the consequential corrigendum dated 02.04.2025 issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission have already been considered and upheld by a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.2966 of 2025 decided on 30.04.2025. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing WPS No.10426 of 2025, has rightly placed reliance upon the said judgment, which squarely governs the present controversy. Once the Coordinate Bench has upheld the validity of the amended Rules and the corrigendum, the same issue cannot be reopened or reconsidered in an intra-Court appeal merely on the basis of a change in the form of proceedings or by reiterating the same contentions that have already been adjudicated upon. 18. It is well settled in law that mere issuance of an advertisement or submission of an application does not create any vested or indefeasible right in favour of a candidate to seek appointment or to insist upon continuation of selection under the unamended Rules. The recruitment process attains finality only upon completion of selection and issuance of appointment orders. Till such time, the rule-making authority retains the power to amend the qualification criteria or other service conditions in the interest 14 of administrative efficiency. In the instant case, since the advertisement dated 02.02.2022 was kept in abeyance by order dated 11.03.2022 and no further steps were taken for nearly three years, the selection process had not attained any finality. Therefore, the State was fully competent to amend the Rules in 2024 and prescribe a higher qualification of Bachelor’s Degree in Mining Engineering for the post of Mining Inspector. 19. The Public Service Commission, being a statutory recruiting agency, is legally bound to conduct its selection strictly in accordance with the Rules as they exist on the date of examination. The corrigendum dated 02.04.2025 was issued only to bring the earlier advertisement in conformity with the amended Rules. Such an act cannot be termed as retrospective application of the amendment, since the recruitment process was still pending and had not culminated into selection. On the contrary, the corrigendum merely ensured that the ongoing process was aligned with the prevailing statutory framework. The plea of the appellants that their “vested right” to be considered under the unamended Rules was taken away is, therefore, misconceived. 20. This Court also finds substance in the submission made by the learned State counsel that the amendment was introduced as a matter of policy to enhance the professional and technical standards required for the post of Mining Inspector. Such a policy decision, taken in the larger public interest to ensure greater efficiency in the functioning of the Department, cannot ordinarily 15 be interfered with by the Court unless shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or violative of constitutional principles, which is not the case here. The appellants have failed to demonstrate that the amendment or the subsequent corrigendum suffer from any legal infirmity, arbitrariness, or unreasonableness warranting interference in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 21. The contention that the amendment should be treated as prospective and hence inapplicable to the 2022 advertisement is without merit. The advertisement itself was never acted upon, and the recruitment process was expressly stayed in March 2022. Once the process stood suspended, no vested or accrued right could survive in favour of the appellants. The amended Rules having come into force prior to the conduct of the examination, the selection process necessarily had to conform to the amended provisions. 22. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, having correctly applied the ratio laid down by the Coordinate Bench in WPS No.2966 of 2025 and noting that the same issue had also been unsuccessfully agitated earlier in WPS No.3201 of 2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn. The learned Single Judge’s reasoning does not suffer from any perversity or error of law. 23. Consequently, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed, affirming 16 the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.10426 of 2025. The appellants shall not be entitled to any relief as prayed for. 24. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu