1 2025:CGHC:59349-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 859 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Technical Education, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin Code -492002. 2 - The Directorate Of Employment And Training Through- Director, Employment And Training, Indravati Bhawan, Block-04, First Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Pin Code -492002. 3 - The Director Employment And Training, Directorate Of Employment And Training, Indravati Bhawan, Block -04, First Floor, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin Code -492002. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Kaushal Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Panna Lal Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kopra, District Gariyabandh Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Though- Chairman, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin Code -492001. 3 - The Controller Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector -19, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin Code -492001 ... Respondent(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.12.09 10:37:34 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Rohan and Ms. Akansha Singh on behalf of Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for appellants/State as well as Mr. K. Rohan, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Ms. Akansha Singh on behalf of Mr. Avinash Singh, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 on I.A. No. 01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay. 2. After hearing 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. 01/2025 is allowed and delay of 168 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present writ appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2523 of 2024 (Kaushal Kumar Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner herein was disposed of by the learned Single Judge. 3 4. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 614/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others vs. Neelam Mashih Tigga and Another) vide order dated 19.08.2025, observing as follows : “9. Rule 8(l)(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(l)(c) provides relaxation up to ten years for women candidates. A conjoint reading of Rule 8(l)(b) and Rule 8(l)(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 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 4 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. ” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 614/2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 614/2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 614/2025. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 19.08.2025 passed in WA No. 614/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet