1 2025:CGHC:54408 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12647 of 2025 • Falwant Praveen Bara S/o Johnson Bara Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. 2/ F Street 12, Sector 6, Bhilai Nagar, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Home Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. Rakhi, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director General Nagar City Army Fire Emergency Services And Sdrf Headquarters Sector 19 Atal Nagar Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Director General Home Guard Civil Defense Fire And Emergencies And State Disaster Response Force Government Of C.G. Head Quarter Sector 10 Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District - Raipur ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 07.11.2025 1. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the rejection order dated 17.09.2025 and for issuance of direction to respondent authority to consider the petitioner as successful and fit for appointment in one MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.11.22 16:30:21 +0530 2 of the post of Station Officer (Sub Inspector) and also to direct respondent No. 2 to decide the representation as per circular of the State Government. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has participated in the selection process for appointment in the post of Station Officer (Sub Inspector) in Home Guards, Fire & Emergency Services and SDRF Headquarters, Chhattisgarh. He would further submit that as per the advertisement minimum height prescribed for male candidate is 168 cm or above whereas the petitioner’s height is 166.7 cm as such he was not considered to participate in the further selection process. He would further submit that Rule 8(3) of the recruitment rules namely Chhattisgarh Fire and Emergency Service and State Disaster Response Force and Promotion Rules, 2017 provides the physical capacity/qualifications according to which height of male candidate should be 168 cm or above and there is note with regard to grant relaxation in height of the candidate. He would further submit that he has preferred a representation on 08.10.2025 claiming relaxation and would pray for granting relaxation with regard to height of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the State opposing the submission would submit that looking to the gravity and reasons of the duty to be discharged in the fire services which may require a suitable height to overcome with the untoward situation which may occur when there is an epidemic or fire, thus he would submit that height which has been fixed in the advertisement and the rules does not require to be re-determined by this Court. Even otherwise for determining 3 the eligibility criteria which has been fixed in the advertisement and the rule does not require to be re-determined by this Court as fixing of eligibility criteria for appointment on particular post falls within the domain of the State i.e. the employer and the interference of the Court in this field is very limited. He would further submit that even otherwise, the respondents being the employer has to engage an employee according to his convenience and administrative exigency for which recruitment has to be made, therefore, reduction in the height cannot be granted. He would further submit that though the petitioner is claiming relaxation but it is well settled position of law that relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is always subjected to satisfaction and within certain parameters of law, therefore, the writ petition sans merit is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court may reduce height of a Scheduled Tribe candidate due to their anatomy and climate condition where they are residing is mis-conceived and deserves to be rejected as it is for the employer to fix the criteria and qualification according to its convenience and its need, therefore, no interference is permissible unless it is shown that it is arbitrary or suffer from acute malafide or contrary to the recruitment rules which is not the situation in the present case. 6. Further contention of the petitioner that as per Rule 8(3) of the 4 Rules of 2017, the Director General of Police has power to grant relaxation as such a direction for relaxation should be issued by this Court, is being considered now. It is not in dispute that relaxation power is granted under the Rules by the Director General of Police, as such no writ of mandamus can be issued as it is a discretionary matter, therefore it is directed that the respondent shall consider the representation of the petitioner on its own merit wherein he has claimed relaxation of height. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not decided the case on merit as relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 8. With this observation and direction, the instant writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish