1 2025:CGHC:7413-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 102 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Kumar Soni S/o Shri Lalji Soni Aged About 42 Years R/o Village And Post Tikari, Police Station And Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Saroj Sahu S/o Keshav Prasad Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Hathitikra, Post Banari, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Radheshyam Sahu S/o Chandram Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Uchchabhatthi, Post Selar, Police Station Seepat, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Balaram Sahu S/o Faguram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village And Post Kirari, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Jitendra Kumar Sahu S/o Hariram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village And Post Sarhar, Police Station And Tahsil Saragaon, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 6 - Ashok Kashyap S/o Nokharam Kashyap Aged About 39 Years R/o Village And Post Mulmula, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Bhanu Pratap Kashyap S/o Preetam Lal Kashyap Aged About 41 Years R/o Village And Post Naila Bhatapara, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.02.13 10:13:39 +0530 2 2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Sudeep Verma, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General with Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellants have prayed for following relief(s): “1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 07.01.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court and may kindly be consider the reliefs sought by the appellants in the original writ petition. 2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be 3 pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the present appellants/petitioners to participate in the Constable Recruitment Chhattisgarh Police Exam 2023-24 while granting them the age relaxation. 3. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit & appropriate as per the facts & circumstances of the present case.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.19 of 2025 (Sanjay Kumar Soni and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners has been dismissed. 4. The case projected by the writ petitioner/appellant before the learned Single Judge is that the appellant/writ petitioner was that the appellants/writ petitioners were Ex-Army Servicemen and rendered their services to the nation as Army Men for considerable period of time. After serving the prescribed services, the appellants/writ petitioners got retired from the Army and as per the prevailing rules, the persons who got retired after serving the Army are entitled for the various benefits including the age relaxation for the purpose of recruitment against the post in the Government civil side. The Government of Chhattisgarh invited 4 applications for the post of Constable Recruitment through Chhattisgarh Police Exam 2023-24, by way of advertisement dated 20.10.2023 and as per the condition of the advertisement, the Ex-Army Servicemen were entitled for the age relaxation as per the directions made by way circular issued by the State Government in this regard. The appellants/writ petitioners have participated in the aforesaid examination and being the ex- servicemen, they had expectations that they will be got selected in the aforesaid examination. The respondent authorities issued the admission card for the purpose of physical fitness test to the present appellants/writ petitioners and date for physical test was also mentioned in the admission cards and when the appellants/writ petitioners appeared for the physical fitness test, shockingly they were not allowed by the respondent authorities to appear in the aforesaid physical fitness test necessary for the recruitment and the Examination Conducting Officer for the relevant district/unit has orally rejected the candidature of the appellants/writ petitioners on the ground that they are not entitled for the age relaxation and the respondent authorities orally made a reference of one Standard Operation Procedure (SOP) of the Department while holding the appellants/writ petitioners ineligible for the above-mentioned examination, however no any such document was ever been shown to the appellants/writ petitioners as well as no written order or directions were issued by the respondent authorities for not conducting the physical fitness test 5 of the present appellants/writ petitioners. Thereafter, the appellants/writ petitioners filed representation dated 28.11.2024 to the respondent No.1 narrating that how they have been excluded illegally & arbitrarily from the recruitment process. 5. When the representations of the appellants/writ petitioners have not been decided, a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.19/2025, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 07.01.2025. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not in accordance with law as the same has been passed without considering the entirety of the aspects. He further submits that learned Single Judge has committed error of law by allowing the writ petition, as such, appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set- aside. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed the impugned order, 6 which does not call for any interference. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and materials available on record. 10. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perusing the impugned order, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order by observing as follows :- “6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and further considering the Rules of 2007 as laid down by State. Since the petitioners have applied for the recruitment process after three years of their retirement from Army service, as such, according to the Rules of 2007, they are not entitled for age relaxation as claimed by them hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. However, the petitioners may challenge the Rules of 2007, if so desire. 7. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed with aforesaid observations and directions.” 11. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has 7 passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an intra Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned orders. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 12. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu