1 2026:CGHC:5171 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1159 of 2026 1 - Giriraj S/o Shri Heeralal Sahu Aged About 37 Years Occupation Retired Army Man Spr At Bombay Engineer Group (Khadki) Pune Maharashtra, R/o Village Bodra (S), P.S. Arjuni, Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director General Of Police (Dgp) Police Head Quarter, Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Superintendent Of Police Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Additional A.G. Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 30/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/direction against the respondents State authority to 2 include the name of the petitioner in selection process of Constable Category of the year 2023-24 and select/ appoint the petitioner on the post of Constable from the reserve category Ex-Serviceman/ Ex-Army, in any District/ Institute i.e. District Dhamtari. 10.2 That, This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant other relief(s) which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in the favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.01.2024, petitioner had submitted an application form for the post of Constable (GD). However, vide letter dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure P/1), he was informed that he was not an ex-serviceman and was still in employment, therefore, he is ineligible for consideration of his candidature for appointment on the post of Constable (GD) as Ex-Servicemen Candidate. He contended that the decision of the authority of declaring the petitioner to be ineligible is erroneous. Referring to letter dated 04.01.2024 (Annexure P/6), learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that vide the aforesaid letter, it was informed to the petitioner that he is going to retire from service with effect from 31.03.2025. 3. He also submits that the last date for submission of the application form was extended and according to the extended period, last date for submission of form was 15.02.2024. As the letter dated 04.01.2024 (Annexure 3 P/6) issued is prior to the last date of submission of application form, the petitioner was eligible. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent/State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for petitioner and would submit that the applicant submitted his application in the category of Ex- serviceman, whether will fall in the category of Ex- Serviceman or not is to be considered on the date of submission of the application form. The petitioner admittedly, had not retired from the Indian Army on the last date of submission of application form and therefore, he will not come within the category of Ex-Serviceman. There is no illegality or irregularity committed by the authorities in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner/application form on the ground that the petitioner is not coming within the category of Ex- Serviceman. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 6. Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that according to the advertisement dated 28.10.2023 (Annexure-P/2), last date for submission of application form was 13.11.2023. It is further claim of the petitioner that the last date for submission of application form was extended and according to extended period, last date was 4 15.02.2024. It is fair submission on the part of the petitioner that though, the date of retirement of the petitioner was 31.03.2025, however, the information for the date of retirement of the petitioner was given on 04.01.2024. Merely, the information of the date of retirement would not be treated as a date, petitioner or any employee stood retired. An employee will be treated to have retired from service, from the date on which, he stood retired from service and according to the document placed on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner stood retired from service w.e.f. 30th March, 2025. 7. Recruitment of the Constable in Chhattisgarh Police Executive Force, Criminal Investigation Department, Police Training School and Government Railway Police is governed by the Chhattisgarh Police Executive Force, Constable (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007. Rule 9 deals with conditions of eligibility of the candidates for direct recruitment. Under Rule 9 (4) (d), it is provided that the candidates who are Ex- servicemen shall be permitted to deduct the entire length of service period rendered in defence service from his existing age, provided that, the resultant age should not exceed the upper age limit by more than three years. Under explanation clause, word ‘Ex-servicemen’ is also defined which reads as under:- 5 Explanation:- The word ‘Ex-servicemen’ means such person who belongs to any of the following categories and has been employed continuously for a period of not less than six months under government of India and who has been retrenched due to the curtailment in establishment in general or as a result of recommendation of economy unit, a maximum of three years, prior to the date of registration of his name in any of the Employment Exchange or from the date of applying elsewhere for the employment in government service or who has been declared surplus; 8. For taking benefit under the category of Ex-servicemen, it is specifically provided that, it should be prior to the date of his name in any of the employment exchange or from the date of applying elsewhere for the appointment in government service or who has been declared surplus. It also provides under clause 2 that such Ex-servicemen, who have been recruited second time and who have been relieved from service on completion of short-term bond, completion of conditions of enrollment. Clause 5 under explanation clause further provides that such officers who have been discharged from service after having served continuously for more than six months period on live vacancies. 9. Perusal of the aforementioned clauses would show that the army men to come within the category of Ex- 6 servicemen, should have been discharged from service. Merely, issuance of the discharge letter mentioning the discharge from service with future date will not have an effect of discharge from the date on which the letter was issued, but it will come into effect and the army man can be treated to be Ex-servicemen only after his discharge from the service, from the date as fixed or mentioned in the discharge letter. 10. In the case in hand, though the discharge order was issued to the petitioner on 4th January 2024 however, its effective date was 31.03.2025 and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, on the last date of submission of the application form i.e. 15.02.2024, petitioner was not discharged from his service. In above facts of the case, respondent authority have not committed any error in holding that the petitioner was not an Ex-serviceman, but an in-serviceman on the date of submission of application form. 11.For the foregoing discussion, the writ petition stands dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Arpan/Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY