1 2025:CGHC:61198 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3869 of 2021 1 - Nawal Kishore Minj S/o Shri Augstin Minj Aged About 30 Years R/o Mamta Nagar, Street No. 5, Anand Vihar Colony, Rajnandgaon, Police Station- Lalbag, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Police Station And Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc), Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Exam Controller, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc), Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Praveen Mink Assistant Professor ( Commerce), Aged About 33 Years, Category- Scheduled Tribe ( St), Last Selected Candidate, R/o Office Of Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mahanadi, Mantralay, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Pandey with Mr. Rshabh Dev Sahu, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, PL For Respondent No. 2 & 3 :` Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate For respondent No. 4 None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 16.12.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s); HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.12.19 10:45:36 +0530 2 “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce all the relevant records relating to case of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned final select list dated 6.7.2021 (Annexure P/6) issued by respondent No.3/Exam Controller, CGPSC. (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent No.2/Secretary, CGPSC and respondent No.3/Exam Controller, CGPSC, Raipur to call the petitioner for interview and after conducting interview if he obtains more marks than respondent No.4 Praveen Minj, then issue amended select list replacing respondent No.4 with the petitioner and give the petitioner joining on the post of Assistant Professor (Commerce). (iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to give the benefit of full salary and other consequential benefits to the petitioner from the date on which the other candidates joined on the post of Assistant Professor (Commerce). (v) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct respondents to give suitable compensation to the petitioner for the mental trauma and agony, harassment and hardships suffered by him as also cost of the litigation.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in various subjects including Commerce. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Commerce). The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category and successfully cleared the written examination. He submits that thereafter the petitioner was called for interview, however, he was not permitted to appear in the interview on the ground that the minimum percentage required in graduation was 45%, whereas the petitioner had secured only 44.89%. Consequently, he was held to be ineligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Commerce). He submits that the petitioner was allowed to appear in the written examination and after clearing the same, was subsequently deprived of participating in the interview. He further submits that since the petitioner had secured 44.89% marks in graduation, the same 3 ought to have been rounded off to 45%. On these grounds, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as prayed for. He submits that the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 3. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents submit that the petitioner admittedly applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Commerce) under the Scheduled Tribe category. It is submitted that the minimum essential qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor is 50% marks in graduation in the concerned subject, and a relaxation of 5% is admissible to candidates belonging to reserved categories. Accordingly, the petitioner was required to secure at least 45% marks in graduation. However, the petitioner secured only 44.89% marks. They further submit that the service conditions are governed by the Chhattisgarh Education Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 2019, which do not provide for rounding off of marks. It is contended that the issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra in view of the judgment passed by this Court in Dr. Mrs. Bhawna Nigam and Others v. Union of India and Others and other connected matters, WPS No. 5201 of 2014, decided on 27.08.2015. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the minimum marks required to be obtained by the petitioner in graduation, after availing the benefit of 5% relaxation as a Scheduled Tribe candidate, was 45%. Nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate the existence of any rule providing for 4 rounding off of marks. This Court, in the case of Dr. Mrs. Bhawna Nigam (supra), considered the said issue and, in paragraph 34, observed as under: “The contention of the Petitioners that alternatively marks at the Higher Secondary or Under Graduation level may be relaxed or rounded off under Rule 24 of the Recruitment Rules also merits no consideration by the Court. The power of relaxation cannot be applied to essential conditions of eligibility. Alternately, the Court cannot usurp the power of the State with regard to invocation of relaxation clause. It is for the State to consider the same if the aggrieved approaches for that relief. The issue has been raised in Court directly without approaching the authorities first and which is the first principle for mandamus. Likewise, the issue for relaxation of age by the employer also pertains to the executive domain of the employer and it shall be wholly inappropriate exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to usurp that power of the employer and substitute it by the views of the Court with regard to who may be suitable or unsuitable for the post of Assistant Professor. In (2001) 9 SCC 356 (Union of India v. Shivbachan Rai) it was observed :- “4……Prescribing of any age limit for a given post, as also deciding the extent to which any relaxation can be given if an age limit is prescribed, are essentially matters of policy…..” 6. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned select list (Annexure P/6) issued by the respondents. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari