1 CGHC010240682026 2026:CGHC:32191-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 625 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 - 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. 3 - 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. 4 - Ramu Kumar Mahto S/o Manbodhi Mahto Aged About 35 Years Belatand, Vill- Karmatand P.O. Karmatand P.S.- Dugda, District - Bokaro, State Jharkhand. 5 - 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. 6 - Rakesh Kumar Ravidas S/o Bahu Ravidas Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Village- Pachra, P. O.- Pachra, P.S. Keredari District Hazaribag, State Jharkhand, Pin- 825321. 7 - Jaivardhan Verma S/o Pratap Verma Aged About 36 Years Resident Of En-64 Ward No. 04, Koriya Nagar, District Koriya Chhattisgarh Pin 497447 8 - Dineshwar Yadav S/o Suresh Yadav Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Village- Amra Tola, P. O. - Gomia, P. S. Gomia, District - Bokaro, State Jharkhand, Pin- 829128 9 - Niraj Kumar S/o Krishna Mant Shaw Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Qtr SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.07.29 11:30:28 +0530 2 No. G/128, Bargad Gach Colony, P. O. Dugdha, P. S. - Dugdha, District - Bokaro , State- Jharkhand. 10 - Sonu Vishwakarma S/o Ram Vilas Vishwakarma Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 17, Canteen Dafai P. O.- Haldibadi P.S. Chirimiri, District - M.C.B. State Chhattisgarh. 11 - 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. 12 - Chhotu Kumar S/o Ramkumar Thakur Aged About 37 Years R/o Barkagaon P.O. / P.S. Barkagaon, District Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand. 13 - 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. ... 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/ M P) Coal India Limited Having Its Office At Premises No. Mar, Plot No.A F - I I I Action Area 1a New Town Rajarhat Kolkata P.O / P.S. Kolkata State West Bengal, 3 - Directorate General Of Mines Safety Through Its Director Secl Seepat Road Bilaspur State Chhattisgarh 495001 4 - Board Of Practical Training (Eastern Region) S E C L 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 (H R), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Office At Sipat Road, Pb No. 60, Bilaspur P.O. And P.S. Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 7 - 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 8 - 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 9 - Shubham Surendra Kumar Bajpai S/o Surendra Bajpai Aged About 31 Years Resident Of Shivnagar Rampur, Vtc-Rajura, P. O. - Rajura (M) District- Chandrapur State Maharashtra, Pin-442905 10 - Surender Pocham Senjurepu S/o 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. 11 - Prashant Singh S/o 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. 12 - Devendra Kumar Shukla S/o Ram Sajan Shukla Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Ward No. 12, Dhera Doka District Rewa, State Madhya Pradesh, Pin- 486333 13 - Sanjay Kumar Mandal S/o Bandhan Mandal Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Village- Chunglo, P. O. - Chunglo, P. S. Jamua District Giridih, State- Jharkhand, Pin-815318 14 - Nilesh Kumar S/o Arsi Prasad Singh Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village- Bastacola, P. O. Bera, P. S. Dhansar, District Dhanbad, State- Jharkhand, Pin- 828106 15 - Vivek Kumar S/o 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. 16 - Amit Mondal S/o Bharat Chandra Mondal Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Majhparqa, Chelol, P. O. - Chelod, P.S.- Chelod, District Bardhaman, State - West Bengal. 17 - Sumit Kumar Jha S/o Shri Nand Kishore Jha Aged About 31 Years Resident Of Village Pathardih, Nbcc Colony, P.O. Pathardih, P.S. Sudamdih, District Dhanbad. State Jharkhand. 18 - Deepak Kumar S/o Dinesh Pandey Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Village Chunglo, P.O.- Chunglo, P.S. - Jamua, District- Giridih, State- Jharkhand, Pin- 815381. 19 - Amarjeet Kumar S/o Shiv Shankar Das Aged About 39 Years Resident Of 4 Village- Bhagaband P.C Bhagaband P.S. Bhagaband District- Dhanbad State- Jharkhand Pin- 828111 20 - Ramesh Kumar S/o Krishanand Singh Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Village 06, Telia Chandravanshi Tola Near Kali Mandir P.O Munger Dist- Munger Bihar , ... Respondent(s) (cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate along with Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate along with Mr. Ankit Bhoi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate along with Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Jintendra Nath Nande, Advocate along with Mr. Ankit Bhoi, learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellants against the order dated 12.05.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4040/2026, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners has been dismissed. Thereafter, the writ appellants prefer the instant appeal before this Hon'ble Court with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the the present Appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 12.05.2026 passed in WP(S) 4040/2026 by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants, who possess the requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Mining Sirdar, 5 assail Advertisement No. 166 dated 08.04.2026 issued by the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) for recruitment to the posts of Mining Sirdar, Surveyor and Assistant Foreman (Electrical). The grievance of the appellants is confined to the prescription of the upper age limit of 30 years for the post of Mining Sirdar, on account of which they were rendered ineligible to apply despite possessing all the necessary qualifications. 4. It is the specific case of the appellants that the upper age limit is arbitrary and contrary to the policy decision of Coal India Limited contained in its circular dated 25.08.2016, whereby a one-time relaxation of five years in the upper age limit for direct recruitment to the posts of Mining Sirdar and Overman was approved. According to the appellants, although the said policy was required to be implemented through recruitment within one year, the respondents failed to implement it and continued issuing recruitment advertisements in subsequent years without granting the promised age relaxation. By the writ petition bearing WP(S) No. 4040/2026, 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 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. But, the same has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge 6 of this Court and aggrieved by the same the writ petitioners (writ appellant herein) are filed the present writ appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge has not appreciating that the appellants are not seeking formulation of a fresh policy of age relaxation but only the implementation of the existing policy decision of Coal India Limited dated 25.08.2016, whereby a one-time relaxation of five years in the upper age limit for recruitment to the posts of Mining Sirdar and Overman had already been approved. He further submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the respondents themselves did not implement the said policy within the stipulated period and thereafter continued to issue recruitment advertisements without granting the approved relaxation, thereby taking advantage of their own inaction. It was further overlooked that the impugned Advertisement No. 166 dated 08.04.2026 is contrary to the statutory provisions contained in the DGMS Gazette Notification dated 27.11.2017, as it prescribes a minimum age of 18 years despite the statutory requirement of 20 years for admission to the qualifying examination. The learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate that obtaining the mandatory qualifications and DGMS certification for the post of Mining Sirdar ordinarily requires six to seven years, leaving only a limited period for eligible candidates to apply before attaining the upper age limit of 30 years. The disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, irregular and delayed recruitment by the respondents, and their failure to consider the representations of the appellants as well as the deliberations held on 22.07.2025 regarding age relaxation, resulted in the appellants becoming over-aged by a marginal period without any 7 fault on their part. Being fully qualified, the appellants have been denied the opportunity to participate in the recruitment process solely due to arbitrary action of the respondents, which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and defeats their legitimate expectation. The impugned judgment, therefore, suffers from non- consideration of material facts, relevant policy decisions and constitutional principles, and is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, as the circular/notification dated 25.08.2016 issued by Coal India Limited granting five years' age relaxation for direct recruitment to the posts of Mining Sirdar and Overman was expressly intended to be a one-time measure. It was contended that the notification itself stipulated that the benefit of relaxation was to be implemented through a recruitment process to be notified and completed within one year, and, therefore, the said policy had exhausted itself long before issuance of Advertisement No. 166 dated 08.04.2026. Learned counsel further submitted that fixation of eligibility conditions, including the prescription of age limit and grant of relaxation, falls exclusively within the domain of the employer and is a matter of policy, in which judicial interference is unwarranted unless shown to be arbitrary or unconstitutional. It was further contended that the appellants had participated in the recruitment process conducted by SECL in the year 2023 and, therefore, cannot now seek extension of the one-time relaxation after having availed the earlier opportunity. Learned counsel also submitted that the recruitment process pursuant to the impugned advertisement 8 has substantially progressed and the written examination has already been conducted. It was, therefore, prayed that the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.05.2026. 8. The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 12.05.2026 observed that :- “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. 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. 9 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. 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. 9. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment, we observed that the learned Single Judge, after considering that the communication dated 25.08.2016 granting five years' age relaxation for recruitment to the posts of Mining Sirdar and Overman was only a one-time measure and had already exhausted its operation, and further considering that the 10 petitioners had already participated in the earlier recruitment process and that no vested right to claim further age relaxation accrued merely because they had subsequently crossed the upper age limit, held that grant of age relaxation is a matter of policy within the exclusive domain of the employer. The learned Single Judge also held that the minutes of the meeting dated 22.07.2025 were merely recommendatory in nature and did not confer any enforceable right upon the petitioners. Accordingly, finding no arbitrariness, illegality or violation of any statutory or legal right in the impugned advertisement dated 08.04.2026, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition. 10. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika