1 2026:CGHC:16528-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 289 of 2026 Dev Ashish Pradhan S/o Subhash Singh Pradhan Aged About 26 Years R/o Street No. 24, Quarter No.- 3a, Sector 7, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, C.G. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, C.G. 2. Secretary General Administrative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, C.G. 3. Transport Commissioner Department Of Transport, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, C.G. 4. Deputy Secretary Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, C.G. 5. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.04.10 17:59:15 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No. 5 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10 .04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State and Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 5. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3586 of 2024 (Dev Ashish Pradhan vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 263 of 2026 (Aishwary Netam vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) vide order 3 dated 02.04.2026, observing as follows : “7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition holding that the appellant admittedly did not fulfill the mandatory minimum height requirement of 165 cm as prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Transport Department Service Rules, 2008 as well as the advertisement, and in absence of any provision for relaxation either in the Rules or in the advertisement, no such benefit could be extended to them as a matter of right. The learned Single Judge further held that the circular dated 31.07.2001 only confers discretionary power upon the competent authority, which was duly considered and declined for valid reasons, and that relaxation cannot be granted after completion of the selection process, particularly when eligible candidates were available. Relying upon settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that eligibility criteria must be strictly adhered to and cannot be relaxed in absence of enabling provisions, the learned Single Judge found no illegality in the action of the respondent authorities and accordingly dismissed the writ petition as being devoid of merit. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition as also with writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, 4 irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 263 of 2026, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 4. 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. 263 of 2026, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 263 of 2026. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 02.04.2026 passed in WA No. 263 of 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan