1 2025:CGHC:42583-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 605 of 2025 1 - Shubhendu Pratap Singh S/o Shri Surendra Kumar Singh Aged About 33 Years Working As Junior Engineer, R/o Officers Colony Bishrampur, Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Its General Manager, Danganiya, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Deputy General Manager Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Danganiya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Division Danganiya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Additional Chief Engineer (HR) Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Division Danganiya, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : None appears on repeated calls. For Respondents : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 22.08.2025 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 Heard IA No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application and finding them to be satisfactory, IA No.01/2025 is hereby allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.08.25 18:43:55 +0530 2 2 The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.5767 of 2024 (Shubhendu Pratap Singh Vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. & Others, and other connected matters) who were petitioners in that writ petitions. The said writ petition of the petitioner was disposed of directing the respondents herein to consider the case of petitioner by extending the benefit of relaxation in completing the requisite period of regular service on the feeder post and thereafter to publish the result of departmental examination to the post of Assistant Engineer-Trainee (T&D). 3 It has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in some of the identical matters, this Bench has partly allowed the Writ Appeal No. 504/2025 (Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited & Ors. Vs. Mukund Madhav Singh Kanwar and other batch of writ appeals) vide order dated 23.07.2025 observing the following terms:- “17. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge erred in issuing directions for relaxation of the essential eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement dated 22/082024, which was framed strictly in accordance with the applicable recruitment Rules and policy decisions reflected in the resolutions of the years 2018 and 2023. 18. The condition requiring a minimum of five years of regular service as Junior Engineer (T&D), excluding the period spent as Junior Engineer (Trainee), is neither arbitrary nor in conflict with any statutory or constitutional provision. On the contrary, it reflects a consistent and rational standard that has been applied in previous recruitments as well. The training period, during which the writ petitioners were paid a fixed stipend and were not holding a substantive or probationary appointment, cannot be counted toward regular service experience in the cadre of Junior Engineer (T&D). 19. Furthermore, once the learned Single Judge held, in para 8 of the impugned order, that the advertisement was issued strictly 3 within the four corners of the applicable Rules, it was not open to the Court to thereafter direct a relaxation of the same rules selectively for a particular group of 47 candidates. Such a direction is not only beyond the permissible scope of judicial review in service jurisprudence, but also causes unjustified discrimination against other similarly situated candidates (approximately 85 in number), who had abided by the advertisement terms and chose not to apply due to ineligibility. The principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution mandates uniform treatment and not selective indulgence. 20. It is a settled principle that framing of eligibility criteria and prescription of cut-off dates are matters within the domain of the employer, and unless it is shown that such conditions are manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of any constitutional mandate, the Court ought not to interfere. In the present cases, no such illegality, mala fide, or procedural Irregularity has been demonstrated by the writ petitioners. As such, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge for extending the benefit of eligibility relaxation to the writ petitioners are unsustainable in law. 21. However, in the interest of fairness, it is directed that in case any of the writ petitioners, as per the original advertisement dated 22/08/2024 and the governing Rules, now come within the zone of consideration, either by way of completing five years' of regular service or otherwise fulfilling all eligibility criteria as on the prescribed cut-off date, their candidatures shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the pendency of litigation or dismissal of the writ petitions. 22. In light of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the learned Single Judge erred in granting relaxation to the writ petitioners (private respondents herein) contrary to the express provisions of the applicable recruitment Rules and the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement dated 22/08/2024. The observation made in paragraph 21 of the impugned order dated 25.04.2025 passed in WPS No.5228/2024 and analogous cases, which confers such relaxation, is thus unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. 23. Consequently, the writ appeals are partly allowed to the extent Indicated hereinabove. However, the remaining part of the impugned order shall remain intact. The appellants/authorities are directed to proceed with the selection process strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 22/08/2024 and in compliance with the applicable recruitment Rules.” The respondent would submit that since the facts and issues involved in the present appeal is identical to that of Writ Appeal No. 4 504/2025 and other batch of writ appeals, this appeal may be disposed of in the same terms. 4 Having considered the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to Writ Appeal No. 504/2025 and other batch of writ appeals, decided on 23.07.2025, hence, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in Writ Appeal No. 504/2025 and other batch of writ appeals. 5 Since, this Court has already taken a view in Para 21 & 22 of the order dated 23.07.2025 passed in WA No. 504/2025 and other batch of appeals that the learned Single Judge has erred in granting relaxation to the writ petitioners contrary to the express provisions of the applicable recruitment Rules and the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement dated 22.08.2024, WA No. 605/2025 also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder