1 2026:CGHC:22183 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4040 of 2026 1 - Manoj Kumar Kanwar S/o Hiralal Kanwar Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 75, Sheeta Para, P. O.- Balod, P. S. Jewartala, Bharda Kalan District Balod State – Chhattisgarh. 2 - Surajdev Yadav S/o Ramlakhan Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Budhiya Dabar, P. O. / P. S. - Budhiya Dabar, District- Hazaribagh, State – Jharkhand. 3 - Hemchand Kumar S/o Narayan Saw Aged About 31 Years R/o Near Railway Station, Gaytri Colony, P. O. /p. S.- Marar District - Ramgarh, State Jharkhand. 4 - Vishal Kumar Tiwary S/o Damodar Tiwary Aged About 31 Years R/o Bhalgora, Tina Dhowra, Near Surya Narayan Mandir, P. O./ P. S. Bhalgori District - Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 5 - Moshin Hamid Khan S/o Hamid Khan Aged About 34 Years R/o - Ward No. 04 House No- 17, Shakuntala Nagar, Near- Nagmandir P. O. - Savner, P. S. - Tah Saoner, District- Nagpur, State Maharashtra. 6 - Ramu Kumar Mahto S/o Manbodhi Mahto Aged About 35 Years SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.05.13 11:56:05 +0530 2 Belatand, Vill- Karmatand P.O. Karmatand P.S.- Dugda, District - Bokaro, State Jharkhand. 7 - Md.Imran Ansari S/o Md. Anwar Ansari Aged About 32 Years Vill- 177, Pandarpala, Idgah Road, Shamshernagar, P.O.- B. Polytechnic, P. S. - Bishunpur, District - Dhanbad, State Jharkhand 8 - Sujeet Kumar Mahato S/o Sundar Lal Mahato Aged About 34 Years Vill- Bormuri, Tola Bagiobra, P. O./p. S.- Baliapur, District - Dhanbad, State Jharkhand. 9 - Shubham Surendra Kumar Bajpai Son Of Surendra Bajpai Aged About 31 Years Resident Of Shivnagar Rampur, Vtc-Rajura, P.O. - Rajura (M) District- Chandrapur State Maharashtra, Pin-442905 10 - Rakesh Kumar Ravidas Son Of Bahu Ravidas Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Village- Pachra, P. O.- Pachra, P.S. Keredari District Hazaribag, State Jharkhand, Pin- 825321. 11 - Surender Pocham Senjurepu Son Of Pocham Senjurepu Aged About 37 Years Resident Of Ward No. 03, Near Hanuman Mandir, Rampur, Saslu Area, Rajura (M) District - Chandrapur, State - Maharashtra, Pin- 442905. 12 - Prashant Singh Son Of Bijay Kumar Singh Aged About 32 Years Resident Of 165, Plot No. 2, Tata Sijua Bazar Dhowra, Belatand, P. S. Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad, State Jharkhand, Pin- 828103. 13 - Devendra Kumar Shukla Son Of Ram Sajan Shukla Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Ward No. 12, Dhera Doka District Rewa, State Madhya Pradesh, Pin- 486333 14 - Jaivardhan Verma Son Of Pratap Verma Aged About 36 Years 3 Resident Of En-64 Ward No. 04, Koriya Nagar, District Koriya Chhattisgarh Pin 497447 15 - Sanjay Kumar Mandal Son Of Bandhan Mandal Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Village- Chunglo, P. O. - Chunglo, P. S. Jamua District Giridih, State- Jharkhand, Pin-815318 16 - Dineshwar Yadav Son Of Suresh Yadav Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Village- Amra Tola, P. O. - Gomia, P. S. Gomia, District - Bokaro, State Jharkhand, Pin- 829128 17 - Nilesh Kumar Son Of Arsi Prasad Singh Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village- Bastacola, P. O. Bera, P. S. Dhansar, District Dhanbad, State- Jharkhand, Pin- 828106 18 - Vivek Kumar, Son Of Naval Kishor Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Ward No- 10, House No. 348, P. O.- Haldibadi, P. S.- Chirimiri, District- M.C.B. State Chhattisgarh. 19 - Amit Mondal Son Of Bharat Chandra Mondal Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Majhparqa, Chelol, P. O. - Chelod, P.S.- Chelod, District Bardhaman, State - West Bengal. 20 - Niraj Kumar Son Of Krishna Kant Shaw, Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Qtr No. G/128, Bargad Gach Colony, P. O. Dugdha, P. S. - Dugdha, District - Bokaro , State- Jharkhand. 21 - Sumit Kumar Jha, Son Shri Nand Kishore Jha Aged About 31 Years Resident Of Village Pathardih, Nbcc Colony, P.O. Pathardih, P.S. Sudamdih, District Dhanbad. State Jharkhand. 22 - Sonu Vishwakarma S/o- Ram Vilas Vishwakarma Aged About 36 4 Years R/o Ward No. 17, Canteen Dafai P. O.- Haldibadi P.S. Chirimiri, District - M.C.B. State Chhattisgarh. 23 - Rajendra Kumar Kewat S/o Sahedeo Kewat Aged About 37 Years R/o- Parsada P.O./p.S.- Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir Champa, State Chhattisgarh. 24 - Chhotu Kumar, S/o Ramkumar Thakur, Aged About 37 Years R/o Barkagaon P.O. / P.S. Barkagaon, District Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand. 25 - Deepak Kumar Son Of Dinesh Pandey Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Village Chunglo, P.O.- Chunglo, P.S. - Jamua, District- Giridih, State- Jharkhand, Pin- 815381. 26 - Amarjeet Kumar Son Of Shiv Shankar Das Aged About 39 Years Resident Of Village- Bhagaband, P.C.- Bhagaband, P.S. Bhagaband, District - Dhanbad, State- Jharkhand, Pin- 828111. 27 - Ramesh Kumar, Son Of Krishanand Singh, Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Village- 06, Telia Chandravanshi Tola, Near- Kali Mandir P.O. - Munger, P.S. - Munger, District - Munger, State- Bihar, Pin - 811213 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Coal India Limited Through The Chairman, Coal India Bhawan, New Town Rajarhut Kolkata, West Bengal. District Kolkata, West Bengal 2 - Senior Manager (P/MP), Coal India Limited Having Its Office At Premises No. 4, Mar, Plot No. AF-III, Action Area 1A, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata,P.O. /P.S. - Kolkata State West Bengal. 5 3 - Directorate General Of Mines Safety Throurgh Its Director, Secl Seepat Road - Bilaspur State Chhattisgarh 495001. 4 - Board Of Practical Training (Eastern Region) SECL Through Its Director, Office At A, 1st Cross Road, Ea Block, Sector- 1, Bidhannagar, Kolkata, West Bengal – 700064. 5 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman - Cum- Managing Director, Having Its Office At Sipat Road, Pb No. 60, Bilaspur, P.O. And P.S. Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 6 - The General Manager (HR), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Office At Sipat Road, Pb No. 60, Bilaspur P.O. And P.S. Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. J. N. Nande, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 12/05/2026 Heard. 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are questioning the advertisement dated 08.04.2026, particularly Clause 04 contained in Table-C thereof, whereby no adequate upper age relaxation has been granted to the UR/EWS category candidates despite that the matter is under consideration of respondent No.3/ Coal India Limited (CIL) vide letter dated 22.07.2025 in view of outbreak of 6 COVID-19 Pandemic situtation. The petitioners further seek a direction to the respondents to suitably modify the said clause by granting additional upper age relaxation for recruitment to the post of Mining Sirdar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, who are aspirants for appointment to the post of Mining Sirdar pursuant to Advertisement No. 166 dated 08.04.2026 issued by SECL, are aggrieved by Clause 04 contained in Table-C of the said advertisement whereby no adequate upper age relaxation has been granted despite the fact that earlier the benefit of age relaxation of 5 years extended vide communications dated 25.08.2016 (Annexure P-4). He further submits that due to non- conduct of examinations for several years, many eligible candidates have become overage and have been deprived of an opportunity to participate in the recruitment process. Learned counsel would also contend that the impugned advertisement is contrary to the statutory provisions as well as the policy decisions of the respondent authorities and, therefore, the same is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of principle of natural justice. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the circular/notification dated 25.08.2016 issued by CIL granting age relaxation for appointment to the post of Mining Sirdar and Overman was only a one-time relaxation granted to the candidates. He further submits that the said 7 notification itself provided that the benefit of relaxation would be applicable only once and the process of direct recruitment pursuant thereto was to be circulated/published and completed within a period of one year. According to learned counsel, the effect and operation of the said notification has already expired long back. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners had already participated in the recruitment process initiated by SECL in the year 2023 for the post of Mining Sirdar and, therefore, at this juncture they are not entitled for claiming the benefit of age relaxation. Hence, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. From perusal of the record, particularly the communication dated 25.08.2016 (Annexure P-4), it appears that the age relaxation of 5 years in all the categories e.g. UR/SC/ST/OBC granted by CIL for recruitment to the post of Mining Sirdar and Overman was only a one-time measure and the said communication itself specifically provided that ‘relaxation is applicable for once and notification to this effect for direct recruitment shall be circulated/published and completed within 1 (one) year’. It is not in dispute that the said notification had already worked itself out and its effect had expired much prior to issuance of the impugned advertisement dated 08.04.2026. 8 6. It is also evident from the material available on record that the petitioners had already participated in the earlier recruitment process initiated by SECL in the year 2023 for appointment to the post of Mining Sirdar. Merely because the petitioners have now crossed the upper age limit, no indefeasible right accrues in their favour to seek further relaxation as a matter of right. Grant of age relaxation falls within the domain of policy decision of the employer and unless the same is shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory or contrary to any statutory provision, interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. 7. As far as reliance placed by the petitioners upon the minutes of the meeting dated 22.7.2025 between Employees Association and CIL is concerned, at agenda No.4 there is a demand for age relaxation on account of non conducting the recruitment process owing to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic for which a long deliberation took place wherein it was stated that the same will be considered and the petitioners have failed to show as to what happened in respect of the said issue. Even otherwise, it is a trite law that resolution is a mere recommendation and the same is not effective ipso facto. (See: Sant Lal Gupta and Ors. v Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 336). 8. Furthermore, The Supreme Court in ‘n’ number of cases relating to eligibility conditions, age relaxation, qualification, etc. 9 categorically held that such matters are essentially policy matters and the scope of judicial review in such matters is very limited. 9. In view of the above and keeping in mind the well settled principles of law, this Court does not find any arbitrariness, illegality or mala fide in the impugned advertisement dated 08.04.2026 so as to warrant interference. The petitioners have also failed to demonstrate violation of any enforceable legal or statutory right. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE $. Bhilwar