1 2026:CGHC:5303 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5268 of 2019 1 - Dr. Sudhir Rajpal S/o Late S. D. Rajpal Aged About 44 Years R/o H.I.G. 29 Parijat Castle, Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vedant Shadangi on behalf of Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Ujjwal Choubey, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal , J Order On Board 30/01/2026 : 1. By way of present Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging the advertisement dated 2.3.2019, published on 6.3.2019, for the post of KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.01.31 14:43:16 +0530 2 Sports Officer wherein as per clause-4, age limit of 40 years has been prescribed for the domicile of State of Chhattisgarh, and the other condition prescribed in the advertisement is clause-(2), by which 50% in the graduation course was made mandatory. 2. Learned counsel for the parties have brought to the notice of this Court that the matter in issue has already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Dr. Jai Shankar Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another (WPS No.9809/2019, decided on 25.11.2019) wherein it has been held at paras-5 & 6 as under:- “5. This Court is aware of almost a similar challenge raised in various writ petitions; such as WP(S) No. 3595/2019 and connected cases, which were considered together and a final verdict was passed by us on 22.07.2019. The prayers challenging the vires of the relevant rules have been extracted in the said verdict and ultimately we found that challenge was devoid of any merit. It was accordingly, that the writ petitions were dismissed. The operative portion as contained in paragraphs 11 and 12 are appropriate to be looked into and hence we reproduce the same as given below : “11. In view of the precinct declaration of law, as aforesaid, and since there cannot be any interference with regard to the policy matters and further since no legally tenable ground is brought to the notice of this Court calling for interference, we are of the view that the writ petitions are not liable to be entertained. 12. Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is however a provision to grant 'relaxation' as envisaged under Rule 22 of the Chhattisgarh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch, Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2019. A true extract of the said Rules, as notified in the Gazette of the State, is given as part of Annexure P/2. The said Rule is reproduced below:- “22.Relaxation.- Nothing in these rules shall be construed to limit or abridge the power of the Governor to deal with the case of any person to whom these rules may apply in such manner as may appear to 3 it to be just and proper: Provided that the case shall not be dealt with in any manner less favorable to him than that provided in these rules.” On going through the said Rule, we find that it only speaks about the powers of the Governor to deal with the case of any person, on a case to case basis for 'just and proper' reasons. We do not find any merit in the writ petitions. They are dismissed accordingly. We however make it clear that the dismissal of these writ petitions will not bar the way of the petitioners, if any petitioner is eligible to get the benefit of Rule 22 of the Rules as noted above.” 6. We are of the view that nothing is left out to be considered herein. This writ petition stands dismissed in terms of the said verdict in WP(C) No.3595/2019 and connected cases.” 3. In that view of the matter, following the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Dr. Jai Shankar Yadav, referred to above, I do not find any merit in the present Writ Petition, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve