ORDER : Parth Prateem Sahu, J. 1. Facts relevant for disposal of these writ petitions are that both the petitioners pursuant to advertisement dated 13.4.2022 issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur have submitted their application. Petitioners were selected on the post of Transport Sub Inspector (Technical) and were given appointment vide order dated 08.09.2022. Order of appointment of petitioners were put to challenge by Intervener- Ashish Minj in Writ Petition No.5206 of 2023. As submitted by learned counsel for the Intervener that while hearing of writ petition filed by Intervener this Court called for records of recruitment proceeding and found that petitioners herein who have been appointed do not fulfill the criteria fixed for height for the post of Transport Sub Inspector (Technical) as their height were less than 165 cm (minimum height) for male candidate. Petitioners thereafter submitted application before concerned authorities granting them relaxation in minimum height in terms of Circular dated 31.07.2001 issued by the General Administration Department, Raipur. Application submitted by petitioner was considered by the Department and in proceeding dated 25.09.2023, rejected their claim on the ground that provision under the Circular would not be invoked as the petitioners after getting themselves appointed have made a prayer for relaxation and observing that relaxation clause as mentioned in circular can be invoked and matter can be placed before Hon’ble Chief Minister in cases where post remained unfilled for want of eligible candidate. Petitioners thereafter have filed these two separate writ petition seeking flowing common reliefs: “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash the impugned order dated 19/6/24 (Annexure P-1) and direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner service along with all consequential benefits including back wages in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direct the re- spondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the circular dated 31/7/2001 without any legal impediment in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the selec- tion process for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with the cost of the petition to the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with the cost of the petition to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners after coming across the advertisement published by Public Service Commission dated 13.04.2022 submitted their applications. According to contents of advertisement, it is apparent that for both the posts advertised i.e. Assistant Regional Transport Officer and Transport Sub Inspector (Technical) only one examination is to be conducted and based on merits, appointment is to be made on the aforementioned two posts. Candidate who is higher in merit has to be considered for appointment on the post of Regional Transport Officer and the candidate who is below in merit will be considered for appointment on the post of Transport Sub Inspector (Technical). Referring to Clause 6 (2) (A), of advertisement he would submit that requirement of height for appointment on the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer for the general category candidate, minimum height is prescribed as 165 cm and for the candidate belonging to ST category it is mentioned as 158 cm. For appointment on the above posts for the candidate belonging to ST category relaxation in height is already mentioned therein. However, in the same advertisement for appointment on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Technical) no such relaxation in height is provided for the ST category candidate. There is no clarity in the contents of advertisement as published by CGPSC. As petitioners were appointed and have worked for one year and therefore petitioners’ services may be protected and petitioners may not be made to suffer for mistake of the appointing authority, if any. In support of his contentions, he places reliance upon decisions in the case of Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (2025 SCC Online SC 2056), Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (2013) 14 SCC 494 and Ankita Thakur and Ors. Vs.The H.P. Staff Selection and Ors. (2023 SCC Online 1472). In alternate, he also submits that if the Court is of the opinion that no interference is required in the impugned order, then it may be observed that termination of service of petitioners may not come in way of their future employment as it is not the fault of petitioners. 3. (2023 SCC Online 1472). In alternate, he also submits that if the Court is of the opinion that no interference is required in the impugned order, then it may be observed that termination of service of petitioners may not come in way of their future employment as it is not the fault of petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.5- PSC would submit that advertisement published was clear and unambiguous. In advertisement eligibility for appointment on the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer and Transport Sub Inspector (Technical) is separately and specifically mentioned. Physical requirement as published in the advertisement is in consonance with the Chhattisgarh Transport Department Subordinate Class-III (Executive) Service Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2008 ( for short “Rules of 2008”). Both the posts have been separately mentioned in the advertisement and the minimum eligibility requirement for fulfilling the post is also mentioned therein separately. Hence, submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that advertisement is not clear/specific is not sustainable . He contended that so far as the other argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, that relaxation could have been granted to petitioners, is the subject matter of the State as it is to be considered by the General Administration Department based on Circular referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners. He also contended that as the petitioners have submitted application form with open eyes and participated in the recruitment proceeding, and therefore now petitioners will not be permitted to challenge the eligibility criteria as mentioned in advertisement or the Rules of 2008. 4. Learned counsel for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4 opposes submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that in advertisement it is very clearly mentioned as to the physical eligibility criteria for appointment on each of the post as mentioned above separately. He submits that after passing of order in writ petition filed by intervener i.e WPS No.5206 of 2023 dated 27.07.2023 proposal has been made as to whether the relaxation based on Circular relied upon by petitioners can be granted or not. Upon considering entire facts it was concluded that Circular will not be applicable to facts of case for grant of relaxation and accordingly the notings were made as is reflecting from document enclosed by the petitioners along with petition. Upon considering entire facts it was concluded that Circular will not be applicable to facts of case for grant of relaxation and accordingly the notings were made as is reflecting from document enclosed by the petitioners along with petition. Petitioners do not fulfill the eligibility criteria and therefore after coming of the knowledge of the authorities, order Annexure P-1 has been passed which cannot be said to be erroneous. 5. Learned counsel for the intervener submits that intervener immediately after issuance of order of appointment dated 08.09.2022 has filed writ petition bearing No.5206 of 2023 challenging the appointment of petitioners therein stating that they are not eligible because they do not fulfill the minimum physical requirement. Looking to the nature of ground as pleaded in writ petition, this Court has called for records and it was placed in a sealed cover. After perusal of records, Court was of the view that petitioners herein do not fulfill minimum physical eligibility and made an observation asking State as to whether petitioners can be accommodated against the vacant post reserved for ST candidate or not. Respondent-State after getting knowledge that appointment of petitioner was erroneous, impugned order is passed. He submits that petitioners thereafter filed writ petitions, in which they successfully obtained interim order, therefore, earlier writ petition filed by intervener was withdrawn and filed an application for intervention in these proceedings. He contended that intervener is placed at Sr. No.1 in the wait list candidate under ST category and if petitioners would not have been appointed, being ineligible candidate as they are not meeting out the minimum physical norms of minimum height as mentioned in Rules of 2008 and Advertisement, intervener would have been appointed on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Technical). He supported the impugned order. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with this writ petition. 7. From the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, it is undisputed fact that respondent -PSC published an advertisement on 13.04.2022 for appointment on the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer and Transport Sub Inspector (Technical). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with this writ petition. 7. From the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, it is undisputed fact that respondent -PSC published an advertisement on 13.04.2022 for appointment on the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer and Transport Sub Inspector (Technical). It is also not in dispute that for appointment on both the posts, respondents have held only one examination, for appointment on both posts, selection is to made based on merit i.e. top meritorious candidates are to be appointed on the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer and below in merit list are to be considered for their appointment on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Technical) subject to fulfillment of other eligibility criteria as specified in advertisement . In the facts of this case, this Court is not discussing the other eligibility criteria but the criteria which is relevant to facts of case i.e. physical eligibility criteria in particular height. 8. Clause 2 (A) (c) of advertisement deals with Physical Eligibility and Clause 2 (A) (c) (ii) prescribes minimum height as required for appointment on the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer (ARTO). For all other candidates, except ST category candidate, height is mentioned as not below 165 cm and for ST category candidate height is mentioned as not below 158 cm. The eligibility criteria of Transport Sub Inspector (Technical) is separately provided in the advertisement under Clause 2 (B). Physical eligibility is provided under Clause 2 (B) (c) and height of candidate is mentioned as not less than 165 cm for male and not less than 152 cm for female. 9. For appointment on the post of Transport Sub Inspector (Technical) no relaxation with regard to height for any other male candidate of different category is mentioned. 10. Respondent State in its reply in categoric terms have pleaded that under Rules of 2008, physical eligibility of all candidates to be appointed on the post of Transport Sub Inspector (Technical) is specified as not less than 165 cm which is not disputed by learned counsel for any of the petitioners. From above, it is apparent that advertisement subject matter of writ petition, based upon which recruitment proceeding has been initiated is strictly in accordance with the Rules of 2008. From above, it is apparent that advertisement subject matter of writ petition, based upon which recruitment proceeding has been initiated is strictly in accordance with the Rules of 2008. It is not case of petitioners that under Rules 2008 there being provision of relaxation of physical eligibility criteria for appointment on the post of Transport Sub Inspector (Technical) respondents have not extended said benefit to them. In fact petitioners have admitted the said fact of no provision under Rules of 2008 of granting relaxation to any other category male candidate for their appointment on the post of Transport Sub Inspector (Technical) but the submission is based on one circular issued by State Govt. on 31.07.2001 by General Administration Department addressing to all the departments of State of Chhattisgarh, which reads as under: 11. Perusal of the above extracted contents of circular dated 31.07.2001 would show that discretion of Hon’ble Chief Minister for relaxing physical eligibility for scheduled tribe category candidate . In case at hand, respondents authority have not found that no candidates are available to fill post of Transport Sub Inspector reserved for ST category candidate. But according to submission of learned counsel for the intervener, intervener is placed at Sr. no.1 in wait list. 12. Note-sheet drawn by the authority for relaxing the age criteria (minimum height) placed in record as Annexure P-8 would show that it is dated 15.09.2023. When intervener made objection on the appointment immediately after publication of select list including name of petitioners being ineligible candidate, which ultimately was concluded observing that object of circular is to relax petitioners eligibility criteria when no scheduled tribe candidate is available for appointment fulfilling physical eligibility criteria provided under service rules so that there may not be backlog vacancy. It was accepted by the authority. Hon’ble Chief Minister also approved noting made in order sheet of aforementioned fact that there is no provision for relaxation of physical eligibility criteria after appointment. 13. Rule 8 of the Rules of 2008 deals with Conditions of Eligibility of Candidates for Direct Recruitment. Rule 8 (1) (a) deals with Assistant Regional Transport Officer and clause 8 (1) (b) deals with Transport Sub Inspector (Technical). Physical eligibility of Transport Sub Inspector is provided as under: “8. 13. Rule 8 of the Rules of 2008 deals with Conditions of Eligibility of Candidates for Direct Recruitment. Rule 8 (1) (a) deals with Assistant Regional Transport Officer and clause 8 (1) (b) deals with Transport Sub Inspector (Technical). Physical eligibility of Transport Sub Inspector is provided as under: “8. Conditions of Eligibility of Candidates for Direct Recruitment x x x x x x (1) (b) Transport Sub-Inspector: - The candidate shall be free from physical and mental disability. (i) Male candidate should not be less than 165 cm in height. Lady candidate should not be less than 152 cm in height. (ii) Chest measurement not less than: 81:50 cm. (unexpended) 86:50 cm (expanded) (iii) must have good binocular vision and should be free from disease of eyelids and eye balls. (iv) The acuteness of his vision should not be less than 6/9 with one and 6/12 with other eye. He must be able to distinguish the principal colours.” 14. Any appointment is to be made based on rules governing field and also the conditions of advertisement. In case at hand, in advertisement minimum height for male candidate to be appointed as Transport Sub Inspector (Technical) is mentioned not less than as 165 cm and in the Rules also it is mentioned that male candidate should not be less than 165 cm in height. No relaxation is provided for minimum height under the Rules nor in advertisement for candidates belonging to S.T category. 15. Admittedly, petitioners were not fulfilling the minimum height criteria as provided under physical eligibility criteria for their appointment on the post of Transport Sub Inspector (Technical). It is for the employer to fix the minimum qualification and physical eligibility criteria if required for any particular post. 16. In case of Ankita Thakur (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, consideration was: A- whether diploma possessed by those applicants is equivalent to diploma required by the rules; B- whether diploma/certificate obtained from private institutions regarding which there was no information about their recognition, could be considered as one from recognized University/Institution. 16. In case of Ankita Thakur (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, consideration was: A- whether diploma possessed by those applicants is equivalent to diploma required by the rules; B- whether diploma/certificate obtained from private institutions regarding which there was no information about their recognition, could be considered as one from recognized University/Institution. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering relaxation/clarification order dated 21.08.2017 as approved by the State Cabinet on 18.09.2017 which is after the last date fixed in the advertisement, held that is not legally sustainable qua those posts, particularly, when no opportunity was afforded to similarly placed persons, who might have been left out, to apply and compete with those candidates who, though not eligible as per the terms of the advertisement, had applied thereunder. Hon’ble Supreme Court further set aside the direction of High Court setting aside the closure of selection process for the said post and to re-cast the merit list as well as fill up remaining posts with the aid of relaxation/clarification dated 21.08.2017/18.09.2017 and further observed that merit list prepared shall not be re-drawn by including such candidates who, though not eligible became eligible. 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court though protected the appointees based on relaxation considering the date of advertisement of the year 2015 and order to be passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 09.11.2023. 18. In case at hand, respondent authority has refused to grant relaxation assigning reason therein and it is for the employer to make appointment considering the eligibility criteria fixed for appointment on a particular post. 19. Case of Vikas Pratap Singh (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner is also on different facts. In the said case, issue is with regard to change of results based on revaluation and not the minimum physical eligibility criteria. 20. In the case at hand also, petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right to get relaxation when competent authority has refused to grant relaxation exercising the discretion in facts of case assigning reason that the object of circular issued vesting with the powers upon Hon’ble Chief Minister to relax, is to fill-up the post when candidate meeting the physical eligibility criteria are not available. 21. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Ors. 21. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 85 observed that selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with stipulated selection procedure which needs to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in terms and condition of advertisement unless such power is specially reserved in relevant rules and/or in advertisement. Even where power of relaxation is or is not provided in relevant rules it cannot be mentioned in advertisement. Such power if exercised should be given due publicity to ensure that those candidate who became eligible due to relaxation are afforded equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxing any condition in advertisement without due publication is contrary to mandate of equality in Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution. 22. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Gujarat and Ors. Vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari & Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 545 while considering the issue of relaxation in eligibility criteria in compassionate appointment observed thus: “11. The courts and tribunal do not have the power to issue direction to contravention thereof. In State of M.P. v. Dharam Bir, this Court while dealing with a similar issue rejected the plea of humanitarian grounds and held as under: (SCC p. 175, para 31) "31.... The courts as also the tribunal have no power to override the mandatory provisions of the Rules on sympathetic consideration that a person, though not possessing the essential educational qualifications, should be allowed to continue on the post merely on the basis of his experience. Such an order would amount to altering or amending the statutory provisions made by the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution." x x x 13 . In State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, this Court has held that any appointment made in contravention of the statutory requirement i.e. eligibility, cannot be approved and once an appointment is bad at its inception, the same cannot be preserved, or protected, merely because a person has been employed for a long time. 14 . A person who does not possess the requisite qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason that his appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules, and would therefore, be void in law. Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such a person would amount to serious illegality and not mere irregularity. A person who does not possess the requisite qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason that his appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules, and would therefore, be void in law. Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such a person would amount to serious illegality and not mere irregularity. Such a person cannot approach the court for any relief for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through court. (See Prit Singh v. S.K. Mangal12 and Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission ) 23. In case of Alka Ojha Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 438 , considering the submission of counsel representing ineligible candidates to direct the authorities to allow ineligible petitioners to continue in service observed thus : “24 . A half-hearted attempt was made by Shri Rakesh K. Khanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in SLP (C) No. 22044 of 2011 to draw solace from the last line contained in the order dated 29-6-2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 494 of 2004 wherein it was observed that the question of regularisation has to be d considered by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission/State Government. In this context, it is sufficient to observe that there is no provision in the Rules under which the Commission or the State Government can regularise the appointment of a person, who was not eligible to compete for selection. x x x 26 . It is needless to say that the order of status quo passed by the High Court and the direction given by this Court for the petitioners' continuance in service will not enure to their advantage and the Commission shall make selection without being influenced by those orders.” 24. In case at hand, there is no such provision of relaxation under rules nor it is mentioned in the advertisement. Further, the authority having power to relax, under circular relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners, refused to exercise that discretion assigning reason . 25. In the aforementioned facts of case, in the opinion of this Court, there is no merit in this writ petition. Both the petitions are liable to be and are accordingly dismissed. 26. Further, the authority having power to relax, under circular relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners, refused to exercise that discretion assigning reason . 25. In the aforementioned facts of case, in the opinion of this Court, there is no merit in this writ petition. Both the petitions are liable to be and are accordingly dismissed. 26. So far as the alternate prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, from the order Annexure P-1 (in both the writ petitions) it is clear that it is not an order of termination/removal but respondent authority has passed an order that petitioners’ services are not required and invoking Clause 24 (a) of the Chhattisgarh General Book Circular and considering the condition 2 (2) of the appointment order, have removed them by giving salary of one month. But to avoid any confusion, it is observed that order impugned passed against petitioners shall not come on their way in future employment.