1 CGHC010285242026 2026:CGHC:35483-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 729 of 2026 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Employment And Training Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Resp. No. 1) 2 - Director Directorate Of Employment And Training Department, Indrawati Bhawan Block 4, First Floor , Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Resp. No. 2) 3 - Divisional Joint Director Employment And Training Division Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh (Resp. No. 3) ... Appellants versus Yogesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Tija Ram Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o C S E B Colony East Korba, Q. No. N E/105 Tehsil Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 1) --- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.08.14 13:02:01 +0530 2 12/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the appellants/State as well as Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on I.A. No. 1 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2026 is allowed and delay of 509 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present writ appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 10.01.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 179 of 2025 (Yogesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was disposed of by the learned Single Judge. 4. It has been pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent that, in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 614/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others vs. Neelam Mashih Tigga and Another) vide order dated 19.08.2025, observing as follows: "9. Rule 8(1)(b) provides that the upper age limit shall be relaxable by five years for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and O.В.С. (Non-Creamy Layer). Rule 8(1)(c) provides relaxation up to ten years for women candidates. A conjoint reading of Rule 8(1)(b) and 3 Rule 8(1)(d) makes it clear that a candidate holding a temporary or permanent post with the State of Chhattisgarh, applying for another post, should not be more than 38 years of age; however, candidates belonging to SC, ST or OBC categories are entitled to an additional relaxation of five years. Both the Rules and the advertisement further stipulate that even after all permissible relaxations, the maximum age shall not exceed 45 years. Thus, a reserved category candidate is entitled to the same relaxation available to a general category candidate plus an additional five years' relaxation on account of his caste. 10. In the present case, the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, being a member of the Scheduled Tribe community, was entitled to such relaxation, and therefore, rejection of his candidature solely on the ground of age was unsustainable. The learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the rejection and directed the authorities to consider his claim for appointment to the post of Training Officer. 11. Considering the pleadings in the writ appeal, submissions of the parties, and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error has been committed warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed." ******* They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 614/2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 4 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 614/2025, decided on 19.08.2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 614/2025. It is further pertinent to note that the view taken in WA No. 614 of 2025 has also been considered by this Court in WA No. 859 of 2025. 6. It is also relevant to note that the aforesaid order dated 19.08.2025 passed by this Court in WA No. 614/2025 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others v. Neelam Mashih Tigga & Another) was assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 28907/2026. Vide order dated 22.07.2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after condoning the delay, declined to interfere with the impugned judgment/order and accordingly dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Thus, the view taken by this Court in WA No. 614/2025 has attained finality and lends further support to the conclusion reached herein. 7. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 19.08.2025 passed in WA No. 614/2025 and order dated 08.12.2025, passed in WA No. 859/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved