1 2026:CGHC:23284 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4264 of 2026 1 - Shashi Bhushan Prasad Chandra S/o Chhedilal Chandra Aged About 35 Years Category- Obc, R/o H. No. 267, Chandra Mohalla, Lakhali, P.O.- Lakhali, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Nimay Chandra Mallick S/o Ramdev Mallick Aged About 33 Years Category- Obc, R/o Village- Nipania, P.O.- Pargha, P.S.- Baliapur, Nipania, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 3 - Gautam Mahato S/o Prafull Mahato Aged About 34 Years Category- Obc, R/o- Village- Dabar Bahal, Near Hari Mandir, P.O.- Dudhizagar, P.S.- Chas Mu, Kushma, District- Bokaro, (Jharkhand) 4 - Gaurav Kumar Paswan S/o Raj Kumar Paswan Aged About 36 Years Category- S.C., R/o Village- Laheri Tola, Near Chota Masjid, P.S.- Rajrappa Project, Chitarpur, District Ramgarh, (Jharkhand) 5 - Ashok Kumar Das S/o Chandra Mohan Das Aged About 37 Years Category- S.C., R/o- H. No. 26, Ghat Manjwara, Lukluki Ghat, District Godda (Jharkhand) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.05.15 19:21:50 +0530 2 6 - Anand Kumar Mahato S/o Ruplal Mahato Aged About 34 Years Category- Obc, R/o- Bachra Basti, Bachra, Piparwar, District- Chatra (Jharkhand) 7 - Manoj Kumar Diwiwedi S/o Ramakant Diwiwedi Aged About 31 Years Category- General, R/o- Village- Solhanda, P.S. Makhdumpur, Bandeya, District- Dhanabad (Bihar) 8 - Yogesh Kumar Kashyap S/o Kunjram Kashyap Aged About 33 Years Category- Obc, R/o- H. No. 92, Kaitha, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 9 - Mithun Das S/o Bhuneshwar Ravi Das Aged About 35 Years Category- General, R/o- Duhatand, Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad, (Jharkhand) 10 - Sunil Tandon S/o Devnarain Tandon Aged About 36 Years Category- S.C., R/o H. No. 191, Gudi, Chauk, Rasaunta, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 11 - Manwendra Kumar Pandey S/o V.S. Pandey Aged About 30 Years Category- General, R/o- Near Post OfÏce, Kenduadih Colliery, Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 12 - Mantu Bauri S/o Logen Bauri Aged About 36 Years Category- S.C., R/o- Dumariakuri, District- Puruliya (W.B.) 3 13 - Sitaram Kumar S/o Bahadur Mondal Aged About 33 Years Category- Obc, R/o- Village- Bangaro, P.O.- Mandro, P.S.- Deori, District- Giridih, (Jharkhand) 14 - Abhimanu Kumar S/o Tej Narayan Singh Aged About 31 Years Category- General, R/o S.I.T. Colony, Near Cisf Camp, P.S.- Dugda, District Bokaro, (Jharkhand) 15 - Yugal Kishore Singh S/o Parmeshwar Singh Bais Aged About 34 Years Category- General, R/o- Hathnewra, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 16 - Ritesh Chaturvedi S/o Umashankar Chaturvedi Aged About 32 Years Category- General, R/o Beside Bela Apartment, Bajrang Chowk, Raj Kushore Nagar, Lingiyadih, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Coal, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi 2 - Secretary Ministry Of Labour And Employment At Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi 3 - Director General Of Mines Safety Through Its Director General, Heerapur, P.S. Heerpur, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 4 - Chairman Board Of Mining Examination, Govt. Of India , OfÏce 4 Of Directorate General Of Mines Safety, Heerapur, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 5 - Coal India Limited Through The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Coal Bhawan, Premises No. 04 Mar, Plot No. Af- Iii, Action Area- 1a, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata (W.B.) 700156 6 - South Eastern Limited Coalfields Through Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - General Manager (P/mp) Department Of Recruitment Cell, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 to 4 : Shri Ramakant Mishra, DSGI along with Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 : Shri Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 15/05/2026 Heard. 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present matter is identical to the facts and grounds as involved in the WPS No. 4058/2026. 5 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are questioning the advertisement dated 08.04.2026, 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 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. 3. 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, 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-7). 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 6 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. 4. 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 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 most of 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 7 deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. From perusal of the record, particularly the communication dated 25.08.2016 (Annexure P-7), 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. 7. It is also evident from the material available on record that most of 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 8 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. 8. 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). 9. Furthermore, The Supreme Court in ‘n’ number of cases relating to eligibility conditions, age relaxation, qualification, etc. categorically held that such matters are essentially policy 9 matters and the scope of judicial review in such matters is very limited. 10. 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. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE shoaib