1 2026:CGHC:18228 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order reserved on 24.03.2026 Order delivered on 21/04/2026 WPS No. 7384 of 2024 1. Khumendra Kumar Sahu S/o Bhishan Lal Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village And Post- Kareli Chhoti, Block Magarlod, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Pin 493662 --- Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh Forest Department, Jai Road, Aranya Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Under Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest And Head Of Forest Forces Chhattisgarh Forest Department, Jai Road, Aranya Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Chief Conservator Of Forest, Raipur Circle, Zero Point, Near Vidhan Sabha, Baloda Bazar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, North Block, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 5373 of 2024 1. Jasvant Singh Thakur S/o Shri Parashu Ram Thakur Aged About 40 Years R/oh No. 0166 Ward No. 10 Gram SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2026.04.21 19:59:40 +0530 2 Balodgahan Post Off - Balodgahan Teh- Gurur District Balodgahan (C.G.) 2. Abhishek Anthony S/o T. Anthony Aged About 33 Years R/o C- 1/65, Sector - 7, New Rajendra Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 3. Pankaj Rawte S/o Late Sukhitram Rawte Aged About 29 Years R/o Village And Post - Vishrampuri District Kondagaon 4. Sumit Kumar Khewar S/o Yashwant Kumar Khewar Aged About 33 Years R/o H. No. B/7 Kalyan Sadan Behind Cross Road Apartment Amlidih Mg Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 5. Pavan Markam S/o Dashru Ram Markam Aged About 35 Years R/o Pre Matric Boys Hostal Baniyagaon Near Higher Secondary School Vill. And Post Baniyagaon Block - Kongdagaon District Kondagaon (C.G.) 6. Upendra Singh S/o Khamhan Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Vill. And Post - Sukulkari Teh- Masturi District Bilapur (C.G.) 7. Vinod Kumar Yadav S/o Tileshwar Ram Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Behratoli Shankar Nagar P.S. Kunkuri District Jashpur (C.G.) 8. Bhupesh Markam S/o Late Tularam Markam Aged About 28 Years R/oh No. 238/3 Schoolpara Haram Geedam District - Dantewada (C.G.) 9. Shubham Jaiswal S/o Ashok Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 29 Years R/o S - 5 Asma Citiy Home Phase 1 Sakri Bilaspur (C.G.) 10. Bhupendra Jamde S/o G.S. Jamde Aged About 35 Years R/o Behind Nirmala Dalli Rajhra District Balod (C.G.) ---Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additonal Chief Secretary Department Of Forest And Climate Change Mahanadi Bhawan Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 3 2. Under Secretary Department Of Forest And Climate Change Mahanadi Bhawan Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest And Head Of Forest Forces Chhattisgarh Forest Department, Jai Road Aranya Bhawan Raipur (C.G) 4. Chief Conservator Of Forest Raipur Circle Zero Point Near Vidhansabha Baloda Bazar Road Raipur (C.G.) 5. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission North Block Sector - 19 Nava Raipur Atal Nagar (C.G.) 6. Yogesh Baghel S/o Shri D.N Baghel Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Badlawand P.O. Pahurbel Teh. Karpawand District Bastar (C.G.) --- Respondents WPS No. 6989 of 2024 1. Rahul Singh Rathore S/o Shri Taman Singh Rathore Aged About 29 Years R/o H.No. 1085 Ward No. 16 Prrana Kashi Nagar, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2. Sanjeev Taram S/o Shri N.R. Taram Aged About 27 Years R/o Ashirwad Colony, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3. Ombiyas Netam S/o Shri Sahdev Netam, Aged About 31 Years R/o Gad Colony Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioners Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh R/o Gad Colony Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Under Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest And Head Of Forest Forces, Aranya Bhawan, Sector - 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 4. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through The Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 7394 of 2024 1. Vaibhav Rahul S/o Nand Kumar Rahul Aged About 39 Years R/o Tulsipar, Sangam Chowk, Ward No. 17, In Front Of Menno Night Church, Rajnandgaon, C.G. 2. Vijay Kumar S/o Jogiram Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 209, Ward No. - 1, Ambedkar Ward Tribel Colony, Dantewada, C.G. 3. Sushant Kumar Pradhan S/o Mohan Lal Pradhan Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Post- Sankara (Jonk) Tehsil- Pithora, Mahasamund, C.G. 4. Praveen Kumar Netam S/o Hem Prasad Netam Aged About 29 Years R/o Q.- 16/a, Street - E M R, Sector - 4, Bhilai- Durg, C.G. 5. Mohibullah Siddique S/o Wazir Ahmed Aged About 41 Years R/o Plot No. 26, Street No. - 7, Panchsheel Sector- B, Borsi, Durg, C.G. 6. Aditya Mehar S/o Bhupendra Mehar Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 38, Guru Vihar, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur, C.G. 7. Bhavesh Shori S/o Shishupal Shori Aged About 36 Years R/o C- 2/2, Civil Lines, Kanker, C.G. ---Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh North Block, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, C.G. 2. Under Secretary Department Of Forest And Climate Change Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, C.G. 5 3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest And Head Of Forest Forces Chhattisgarh Forest Department, Jai Road, Aranya Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. 4. Chief Conservator Of Forest Raipur Circle, Zero Point, Near Vidhansabha, Baloda Bazar Road, Raipur, C.G 5. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission North Block, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, C.G. --- Respondents WPS No. 7896 of 2024 1. Siddharth Bharti S/o Shri Trilokinath Bharti Aged About 32 Years R/o Plot No. 32, 1st Floor Street No. 4, Banshi Vihar Borsi Durg District - Durg Chhattisgarh 2. Takeshwar S/o Shri Indal Latiya Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. 23, Ward No. 15, Marartola Rajnandgaon (CG) ---Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Raipur Circle Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Secretary Department Of General Administration Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Aranya Bhawan Sector 19, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Wildlife) Aranya Bhawan Sector 19, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 5. Chief Conservator Of Forest Raipur Circle Raipur (CG) 6. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission through its Secretary North Block Sector 19, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur (CG) --- Respondents 6 WPS No. 1698 of 2025 1. Rakesh Kumar Patel S/o Shri Yadow Ram Patel Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Dhimani, Post Bandora, Tehsil Adbhar, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Under Secretary Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Principle Chief Conservator Of Forest And Head Of Forest Forces Aranya Bhawan, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary, North Block, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 3460 of 2025 1. Madhusudan Mourya S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra Morya Aged About 31 Years R/o Pujari Para, Village Lohandiguda, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh 2. Yogesh Baghel S/o Shri D. N. Baghel Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Badlawand, Post Office Pahurbel, Tehsil Karpawand, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh 3. Zaahid Khan S/o Shri Z.H. Khan Aged About 36 Years R/o A- 19, Surya Apartment, Katora Talab, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 4. Pramod Kumar Maravi S/o Shri Sumrit Lal Maravi Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Manjurpahari, Ward No. 2, Post Office Beltara, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. Nitesh Kumar Deshmukh S/o Shri Bhojendra Kumar Deshmukh Aged About 37 Years Ward No. 51, Sundar Nagar, Borasi Dakshin, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 6. Amit Kumar Kashyap S/o Shri S. R. Kashyap Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Karanji, Post Karanji, Tehsil Tokapal, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh 7. Digvijay Singh S/o Shri Sushil Kumar Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Patel Medicos, Bhuji Bhawan Chowk, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 8. Vidya Bhushan Kumar S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Kamar Aged About 27 Years R/o Sagarapara, Venkat Nagar Road, Post Pendra Road, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh 9. Ajay Sahu S/o Shri Ganga Ram Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o 7, Patel Para, Ward No. 1, Dahi Angara, Dahi, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 10. Raghawendra Singh S/o Shri Narendra Pal Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Majhgawan, Tehsil Belgahana, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 11.Vinay Tigga S/o Shri Kashi Nath Tigga Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 119/4, Chidrapara 4, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 12. Pradeep Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Murari Ram Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Dipatoli, Tehsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioners Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mantralaya, 8 Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 2. Secretary Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Aranya Bhawan, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Wildlife) Aranya Bhawan, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Chief Conservator Of Forest Raipur Circle, Raipur (CG) 6. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (CG) --- Respondents For Petitioners in WPS No.7384/2024 : Mr. Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate For Petitioners in WPS No. 5373/2024 & 7394 /2024 : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Kanchan Kalwani and Anmol Gupta, Advocates. For Petitioners in WPS No.6989/2024, 1698/2025 : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui with Ms. Apurva Pandey, Advocate For Petitioners in WPS No.7896/2025 & 3460/2025 and respondent No.6 in WPS 5373/2024. : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondent State : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhya, Additional Advocate General For Respondent PSC : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Dr. Sudeep Agrawal with Ms. Yogisha Tiwari, Advocates For Intervenor : Mr. CJK Rao, Advocate 9 S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge CAV Order 1. As common issue is involved in this bunch of writ petitions for determination, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. This bunch of writ petitions are filed by two sets of candidates. One set comprised of those candidates who became unsuccessful in physical standard test (walk test) and have assailed the action of respondents in cancelling the decision granting second chance to them to appear in walk test. Other set comprised of wait list candidates, they have sought for a direction to respondent authorities to consider them for their appointment. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (for short ‘PSC’) issued an advertisement dated 10.06.2020 under the Chhattisgarh Forest (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 2015 (henceforth ‘the Rules of 2015’) for filling up 157 posts of Forest Ranger and 21 posts of Assistant Conservator of Forest. Petitioners, in pursuance to said advertisement, applied and appeared in written examination and interview. A final select list, consisting of main list and waiting list, of selected candidates was prepared by PSC on the basis of consolidated marks secured by the candidates in written exam and interview, and uploaded it, on its web portal on 10 3.6.2023. After publication of final selection list, the selected candidates were called for documents verification and physical test which includes physical calibre test (walk test). A committee was constituted by the State Government for conducting document verification and physical test. In the physical caliber walk test conducted on 12.09.2023. Some of the petitioners herein could not clear qualifying walk test of 26 kilometer in physical test as they failed to complete 26 kms walk within the prescribed time of 04 hours. Unsuccessful candidates and some who did not appear in physical parameters test, preferred representation seeking another opportunity to face physical walk test on the grounds mentioned therein. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur forwarded representation of petitioners and others to the respondent No.1 with recommendation to grant another opportunity for physical walk test. The State Government vide order dated 18.1.2024 granted another opportunity to selected candidates to appear for physical test. This order is put to challenge by candidates, who became unsuccessful in physical parameters and placed in waiting list, by filing separate writ petitions. During pendency of those writ petitions, the State Government vide order dated 20.6.2024 has withdrawn the permission of second chance to appear in physical walk test. Pursuant thereto, candidature of 11 petitioners, who could not complete physical caliber test walk test within prescribed time of 04 hours, is cancelled. 4. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for petitioners in WPS No.6989/2024, 1698/2025, 5373/2024 & 7394 /2024 respectively, submit that walk test was conducted on a public road under extreme heat condition during a working day when vehicular traffic was at its peak, there was lack of sufficient water and drink; there was long queue at drinking water stalls; intimation of test was received just two days before. All these factors materially affected efficiency of candidates as a result walk of 26 kms could not be completed within the prescribed time. Mentioning aforementioned reasons, petitioners submitted representation before the Chief Conservator of Forest on 13.9.2023, who found substance in the case of petitioners and accordingly, vide letter dated 31.10.2023 recommended for grant of another opportunity for physical caliber walk test. Said recommendation was also approved by the Hon’ble Minister In-charge. Considering the admitted adverse conditions, which impaired efficiency of candidates during walk test, coupled with approval of the Minister In-charge, respondent No.2, exercising power of relaxation conferred under Rule 21 of the Rules of 2015, granted permission to give another opportunity for physical caliber walk test vide order dated 12 18.1.2024. In the reply submitted in writ petition filed by petitioners in WPS No.7896/2025 and 3460/2025, challenging decision of giving another opportunity to appear in physical test, it is categoric stand of respondent State authorities that the State Government is empowered to grant second opportunity for clearing physical test, relevant rules also does not bar a candidate from clearing the physical caliber test on second attempt. However, all of a sudden, the respondent State authorities took a somersault and passed the impugned order cancelling its decision to grant another opportunity for appearing in physical test. 5. It is submitted that the authority concerned, taking into consideration the hardship/difficulties faced by candidates during walk test affecting their performance, consciously granted second chance, however, after transfer of said authority, the successor incumbent, who had no authority under the Rules of 2015 to review or recall such permission, overturned such a reasoned decision in a mechanical and arbitrary manner. Once a decision to grant second opportunity to appear in physical test is taken, the respondent authorities are estopped from withdrawing the same abruptly without any justifiable reason. It is further submitted that it is not the case, that respondent Department for the first time granted another opportunity to the candidates for physical test. It is submitted 13 that not only in earlier selection process the candidates who were absent in physical test etc., were granted another opportunity, but in present selection process, one candidate namely Ms. Varsha Kashyap was absent in physical parameter (walk test) conducted on 12.09.2023, however, she was granted opprtunity to appear in walk test, which was arranged on 10.2.2024, and thereafter she has been appointed on the post of Forest Ranger. Thus, the action of respondent No.2 in denying another opportunity to petitioners for walk test on the ground that there is no such provision under the Rules of 2015, is discriminatory in nature. 6. It is next contended that there is no such provision in the Rules of 2015 that, 26 kilometer’s walk for men and 16 km walk for women to be completed in 04 hours is an essential qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest and Forest Ranger or that the candidates who have not completed walk test within prescribed time would be declared ineligible or disqualified. Selection/ appointment on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest and Forest Ranger is mainly based on marks secured by a candidate in written examination and interview, there is no mark for passing of physical parameters and walk test. The walk test is only a mode to assess physical efficiency and not determinative of ranking or merit list. 14 Allowing a second chance does not prejudice anyone rather it ensures that eligible candidates are not disqualified unfairly. In other words, denial of second chance to appear in walk test would result in a situation where less meritorious candidates will be selected while more meritorious candidates like petitioners, who have secured more marks than those candidates in written examination and interview, will be disqualified on the ground that they did not complete walk test, which does not determine inter se merit or ranking, in prescribed period of time. Hence, the impugned order withdrawing second opportunity to appear in walk test, which is granted by respondent authorities taking into account mismanagement in conduct of physical test, without any justifiable reason, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and liable to be set aside with a direction that petitioners are entitled to get another opportunity to appear in physical caliber walk test. In support of their submissions, reliance is placed on decisions in order of Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) dated 1.2.2013 in Service Single No.5254/2011 and other connected matters; order of Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur) dated 14.11.2018 in Civil Appeal (Writ) No.1732/2016 (Thawara Ram vs State of Rajasthan & ors); judgment dated 22.12.2023 of Gujarat High Court in bunch of appeals lead 15 case being R/LPA No.1145/2022; judgment dated 24.8.2022 of Gujarat High Court in bunch of writ petitions, lead case being R/Special Civil Application No.4373/2022.Disha Panchal and others vs Union of India, reported in AIR 2018 SC 2824. 7. Mr. Dhaniram Patel, learned counsel for petitioners in WP No.7384 /2024 adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioners in WPS No. 5373/2024 & 7394 /2024, 6989/2024, 1698/2025. In addition, he submits that there is no mention in the impugned letter dated 20.6.2024, Annexure P-1, that permission granted to reconduct walk test of ineligible candidates is withdrawn, rather the authority concerned has only expressed disagreement with the proposal to grant second chance to qualify walk test. Mere disagreement or clarification by the General Administration Department could not be valid basis to override the original decision. He submitted that there is no provision in the Rules of 2015 that a candidate failed to clear the physical test including walk test, will be declared disqualified. Further, when the candidates who completed 26 kms walk in 4 hrs is not entitled for any benefit, then disqualification of candidates for completing the walk test in more than prescribed time is arbitrary. He submitted that the purpose behind mentioning in call letter dated 31.8.2023 that ‘second chance will not be 16 granted’, is to ensure that candidates take the walk test seriously. He also contended that principle governing change of rules in midstream of game has application in cases where change is with respect to selection process but not the qualification or eligibility and physical calibre test is the part and parcel of selection process. He further submitted that petitioner is not challenging the entire recruitment process but only seeking second chance to undergo physical walk test to be conducted in a fair and safe environment. 8. Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners in No.7896/2025 & 3460/2025 as for respondent No.6 in WPS 5373/2024 i.e. candidates successful in physical caliber walk test and physical parameters and placed in wait list, would vehemently oppose the submission made by learned counsel for petitioners in WPS No.6989/2024, 1698/2025, 5373/2024 & 7394 /2024 respectively, that physical caliber test (walk test) was not an essential qualification as no mark is to be awarded in walk test. He would submit that in the advertisement issued by the respondent authorities calling upon the applications from interested candidates for appointment/ selection on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest and Forest Ranger. In the advertisement, along with minimum qualification required for becoming eligible to participate in recruitment process, it also 17 provides for minimum physical standards. Along with requirement of body structure under physical standards like height, chest, expansion of chest after inhaling, it also mentions at Entry No.5 of the table about physical caliber walk test of 26 kms for male candidates and 16 kms for female candidates, to be completed in four hours. Physical standards as are mentioned in the advertisement are extracted from the Rules of 2015. Rule 11 of the Rules of 2015 deals with direct recruitment by Selection/ Competitive Examination/ Interview. Referring to sub-rule (11) of Rule 11, he submits that physical parameters are specifically prescribed under the Rules for becoming eligible a candidate for his/her appointment. He also stressed upon the word ‘minimum’ under the head of physical parameters and submits that minimum requirement to complete physical caliber test of walk in 4 hrs, means that though no mark is to be awarded for walk test but to qualify and become eligible for appointment based on marks secured in written test and interview to determine the merit, a candidate has to qualify the walk test. Unless a candidate attains the physical parameter, he/she will not be eligible and therefore, submission of learned counsel for petitioners that completion of physical caliber test of walk within period prescribed is not essential qualification is contrary to the provision under Rule 18 11 (11) of the Rules of 2015 and conditions of the advertisement based upon which petitioners in WPS No.6989/2024, 1698/2025, 5373/2024 & 7394 /2024 have submitted their application. 9. Mr. Das next contended that submission of learned counsel for petitioners in WPS No.6989/2024, 1698/2025, 5373/2024 & 7394 /2024 that walk test has not been conducted at appropriate place, time on which walk test was conducted and place was not suitable due to high temperature and traffic on the road, to support the proposal forwarded by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest for granting second chance for physical caliber test of walk is also not correct. He contended that walk test of almost all the candidates who have been issued letter for appearing in documents verification and for physical parameters and physical caliber test of walk have been called for participating in physical caliber test conducted by respondents on one day and at one place fixed i.e. on 12.9.2023 at 7:00 a.m. As many as 211 candidates participated in physical caliber test conducted by respondents on the date and time fixed, out of which, 24 candidates who applied and participated for the post of Forest Ranger, could not complete the physical caliber test (walk) within prescribed time. All 211 candidates have participated in physical caliber test under the same environmental condition, circumstances 19 and none of them, except petitioners in WPS No.6989/2024, 1698/2025, 5373/2024 & 7394 /2024, has complained about shortcoming, if any, or about weather condition and traffic. Once the petitioners in respective petitions participated in walk test without any protest or objection and that too, out of their own freewill, and failed therein, then they could not turn around and ask for second chance. 10. He next contended that in the Rules of 2015 as also the advertisement issued by respondent PSC, it is nowhere mentioned that the candidates, who did not qualify the walk test within prescribed period of time in first attempt, will be granted second chance/another opportunity for clearing walk test. Even in the call-letters issued to the candidates, who participated in walk test, clearly mentions that no second opportunity will be granted. In the year 2017 also, recruitment process for the same post was conducted and in which the candidates were given only one opportunity to appear in the physical test and the candidates who failed in the physical test were left for appointment and the vacancies were filled up by the candidates of the wait list. Hence, where the Rules prescribe a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, it has to be done in the same manner following the provisions of law, without deviating from the prescribed procedure. When the Rules of 2015 as also 20 advertisement does not provide for second chance to qualify walk test, the decision taken by respondent authorities to grant another opportunity is contrary to the recruitment rules. The requirement of minimum physical test cannot be dispensed with as it forms integral component of suitability and efficiency for the post. Terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement are binding and must be scrupulously followed. No relaxation of such conditions is permissible unless the power to relax is expressly provided either in the statutory rules or explicitly mentioned in the advertisement itself. Failure to qualify in the prescribed physical test disentitle the candidates from claiming from claiming appointment and no subsequent relaxation or second chance can be claimed as a matter of right. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bedanga Talukdar v Saifudaullah Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 85 and State of UP vs Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi, (2013) 11 SCC 178; Sanjay K Dixit v State of UP, (2019) 17 SCC 373. 11. He next contended that grant of another opportunity to appear in walk test to unsuccessful candidates in absence of any provision in the advertisement or the governing rules, would amount to a clear departure from the stipulated conditions of the selection process and thereby changing the rule of game 21 after the start of selection process. It is well settled position in law that once the process of recruitment has began, the State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the rules of game qua method or procedure for selection, in midst of the game or after the game is played. To buttress this submission, he placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Parth Das and others vs State of Tripura and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 1844 & Tej Prakash vs State of Rajasthan, (2025) 2 SCC 1. 12. He next contended that no relief can be granted to the candidate if he approaches the Court after the selection process is over and select list is expired. In case at hand, list of selected candidates was issued on 03.06.2023. Validity of selection, which was extended from time to time, expired on 02.06.2025. Therefore, at this stage, no relief can be granted by this Court to the candidates who failed to qualify mandatory walk test because they have no right to claim appointment after expiry of validity of select list. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of State of Orissa vs Rajkishore Nanda, (2010) 6 SCC 777 and Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v. South East Central Railway, (2019) 12 SCC 798 and also order of the Coordinate Bench dated 17.9.2021 in WPS No.2581/2013 (Dilip Kumar Singh vs State of CG & ors). 22 13. He further contended that petitioners in WPS No.6989/2024, 1698/2025, 5373/2024 & 7394 /2024, have based their case only on the proceedings drawn by the department for giving one more opportunity and issuance of letter in this regard on 10.8.2023. Said proceeding initiated by the department was in contravention of the opinion given by the General Administration Department. Initially, proposal for grant of one more opportunity to 24 unsuccessful candidates who applied and participated for the post of Forest Ranger and 03 unsuccessful candidates who applied for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, was not accepted by the General Administration Department and in the note sheet it is mentioned that no opinion can be given on the proposal mentioning that there is no provision under the recruitment rules to provide second chance to undergo physical caliber test (walk test) and misinterpreting aforesaid opinion of the General Administration Department, the Chief Secretary, Department of Forest and Climate Control, has observed that it would be appropriate to give second chance. Said decision when again came to notice of the authorities, considering that it is contrary to the rules applicable for the recruitment rules and also in contravention of clauses of advertisement, it was again sent by the department for opinion of the General Administration Department whereupon the General 23 Administration Department has given clear opinion disagreeing with the proposal being contrary to the recruitment rules. He also pointed out that in the note sheet of the General Administration Department, it is further mentioned that action be taken against the official who proceeded to grant second chance to 27 unsuccessful candidates. 14. He submits that if the proceeding initiated by the official of the State Government is found to be in contravention of the provisions applicable to it, then the State Government can very well rectify it by recording proceeding and in this case also, same process was followed and earlier letter written by department dated 18.1.2024, by which direction was issued to give second chance to 27 unsuccessful candidates, has been made ineffective. 15. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondent State in all writ petitions would submit that recruitment proceedings are governed by recruitment rules and conditions mentioned in advertisement, which are uniformly applicable to all candidates. In this case, eligibility criteria in the advertisement for selection of Assistant Conservator of Forest and Forest Ranger has been narrated in detail, according to which, a candidate shall be required to undergo a walk test of 26 kilometers in case of a male 24 candidate and 16 kilometers in case of a female candidate within four hours duration. Letter dated 31.08.2023 issued to the candidates for physical test clearly contemplates that candidates are required to complete the walk test within an outer limit of 04 hours and second chance to qualify the walk test will not be granted. As such, the candidates with full understanding and knowledge, that only one chance would be allowed to clear physical test, appeared in the physical test. Petitioners in WPS Nos.6989/2024, 1698/2025, 5373/2024 & 7394 2024 failed to clear walk of 26 kms walk in 4 hours as a result they were declared disqualified. 16. He submitted that the forest officials are routinely required to travel long distance on foot through dense forests, hilly regions and remote areas where vehicular access is either limited or non-existent. Walk test is, therefore, is not a mere formality rather it is a minimum qualifying standard. It is an essential criteria directly linked to the functional requirements of the post in forest service. Though no mark was to be awarded against walk test, but it constitutes a minimum qualifying benchmark, going to the root of the eligibility, and therefore, grant of second chance in such a test would defeat the very purpose of selection process and amounts to granting an undue advantage upon a few, thereby prejudicing others who have fulfilled the prescribed standards. Once a 25 candidate stands disqualified as per rules, granting second chance would also open the floodgates for similar claims by other disqualified candidates. 17. He further submitted that pursuant to proposal forwarded by respondent No.2 seeking opinion with respect to grant of second chance to undergo walk test, the General Administration Department vide letter dated 17.10.2023 had clearly opined that in absence of any provision in the recruitment rules regarding grant of second chance to undergo physical caliber test (walk test), no opinion can be given on said proposal. However, respondent No.2 vide letter dated 20.6.2024 (Annexure P-1) granted permission to reconduct walk test for 27 disqualified candidates. When the aforementioned fact was brought to the notice of the General Administration Department, it again expressed disagreement with the proposal of second chance being contrary to recruitment rules and advertisement and also directed for initiation of disciplinary action against the officer granting second opportunity for walk test. He submits that the State Government is not only empowered but under a legal obligation to rectify the mistake once it is noticed that a decision is contrary to the relevant rules. Hence, the withdrawal of permission to reconduct walk test of unsuccessful candidates cannot be faulted with as it is taken, 26 to bring action of the State Government in conformity with the governing rules and therefore, warrants no interference. 18. It is submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that submission of learned counsel for petitioners that one Varsha Kashyap was granted second chance to appear in walk test, is not correct. It is submitted that Varsha Kashyap was medically unfit on the date when physical test was originally conducted i.e. 12.09.2023, and considering the medical documents submitted by her in support of her claim, she was permitted to undergo physical test. He submits that expression ‘second chance’ presupposes the existence of a prior attempt that has culminated in failure or non- qualification. Said Varsha Kashyap, owing to her illness, never participated in the physical test held on 12.09.2023, therefore, labelling the opportunity granted to her as a ‘second chance’ is factually incorrect. 19. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Public Service Commission would submit that respondent Public Service Commission is a recruiting agency and its role is confined to conduct the selection process for appointment to the services of the State Government and selecting candidates on the basis of merit. According to the procedure prescribed, written test and interview has been conducted by respondent PSC, work of verification of documents, physical 27 calibre test (walk) as also physical standards of the candidates is to be conducted by respondent department. After completion of written examination and interview, respondent PSC prepared a category-wise list arranged in order of merit of candidates, who have qualified and declared by the Commission to be suitable for the appointment. Said list was forwarded to the Government for appointment to the posts as advertised. Based on select list along with wait list, forwarded by respondent PSC, physical walk test as also physical parameter was conducted and result thereof has been declared by the respondent Department. Even no relief of whatsoever nature is claimed against the respondent Public Service Commission. 20. He further submitted that publication of merit list, which is relied upon by petitioners in WPS No. 5373/2024 & 7394 / 2024, 6989/2024, 1698/2025, does not entitle any candidate for appointment unless he/she meets out the physical test as provided in the rules and advertisement. After physical standard test undergone by candidates, whose name are finding in select list and wait list, vide order dated 15.10.2024, candidature of total 42 candidates was cancelled (18 candidates were absent in physical test and 24 candidates were declared disqualified). Further, appointment of 04 Forest Rangers, who failed to give joining within prescribed 28 period of time, was also cancelled vide order dated 15.10.2024. Order of cancellation of candidature has not been put to challenge in all writ petitions. He further pointed out that the names of wait list candidates in category-wise has been forwarded to the State Government/employer vide letter dated 29.10.2024. 21. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents available in record of writ petition. 22. In the light of submissions of learned counsel for respective parties, the only question that falls for consideration in these batch of writ petitions is whether the candidates, who did not qualify the walk test within the prescribed period of time, are entitled to have a second chance to qualify walk test? 23. In order to better appreciate the controversy, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions governing the recruitment, which are relevant for adjudication of this case. 24. The State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, has framed the Rules of 2015 governing the recruitment and conditions of service of various posts under the Chhattisgarh Forest (Gazetted) Services. Rule 6 of Rules of 2015 provides for method of recruitment i.e. (a) by direct recruitment through competitive examination or selection (b) by promotion of members of the service (c) by transfer/deputation of persons 29 who hold in a substantive capacity. Rule 8 provides for conditions of eligibility for direct recruitment i.e. age, educational qualifications and fees. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 8, a candidate must possess educational qualifications as prescribed for the service as shown in Schedule III. As per qualification prescribed in Schedule III for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest and Forest Ranger, a candidate should have graduate degree or equivalent from a recognized degree with at least one of the subjects mentioned therein. Rule 9 of the Rules of 2015 prescribes ‘disqualification’ and according to sub-rule (3), any candidate shall be appointed to any service unless he is declared mentally or physically fit. Rule 11 deals with procedure of selection/appointment through direct recruitment. Sub-rule (11) of Rule 11 envisages that a candidate must satisfy themselves that he/she fulfills prescribed minimum physical requirements, if any, prescribed for the service. Minimum physical parameters are also provided under this rule. Sub- rule (11) of Rule 11 reads as follows:- “11. The Commission shall not provide counselling to candidates regarding their eligibility for any specific service. The candidates must verify for themselves whether they meet the prescribed eligibility conditions, and if standard physical parameters are prescribed for certain services then candidates must satisfy themselves that they fulfill the prescribed 30 minimum physical requirement prescribed for the service before applying for the post. Physical Parameters (Minimum) Male Female (I) Height (unreserved, Scheduled caste and other backward classes) 163 cms 150 cms (ii) Height (scheduled tribes) 152 cms 145 cms (iii) Chest 084 cms 079 cms (iv) Minimum chest expansion 005 cms 005 cms (v) Physical calibre test walking within four hours. 026 kms 016 kms 25. Rule 21 of the Rules of 2015 provides for relaxation to deal with the case of any person to whom these rules may apply in such manner as may appear to it to be just and proper. Rule 21 is extracted herein below for ready reference:- “21.Nothing in these rules shall be construed to limit or abridge the power of the Governor to deal with the case of any person to whom these rules may apply in such manner as may appear to it to be just and proper. Provided that the case shall not be dealt with in any manner less favorable to him than that provided in these rules.” 26. From the above quoted provisions of the Rules of 2015, it is very clear that a candidate to become eligible for appointment by way of direct recruitment, is expected to be of a particular age and possess a particular degree. It is also provided that any candidate shall be appointed to any service unless he/she is declared mentally or physically fit; and a candidate must satisfy themselves that he/she fulfills prescribed 31 minimum physical requirements as prescribed under the rules, if notified for any post. Minimum physical requirements prescribed under the Rules of 2015 consists of height, chest, minimum chest expansion and physical caliter test walking of 26 kilometers in case of a male candidate and 16 kilometers in case of a female candidate within four hours. The power of relaxation under the Rules of 2015 is with the Governor, which is not limited as it can be exercised as it may appear to be just and equitable except that relaxation shall not be in any manner less favourable to a candidate than that provided in these Rules. 27. At this stage, I deem it appropriate to refer to relevant clauses of the advertisement issued under the Rules of 2015 by the Public Service Commission, which provides for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest and Forest Ranger and also parameters for such selection. 28. On 10.6.2020 the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission has issued an advertisement inviting application Form from eligible candidates for the post of ‘Assistant Conservator of Forest’ and ‘Forest Ranger’. This advertisement has been issued as per the Rules of 2015. Clause 2 of the advertisement prescribes eligibility criteria, which read thus:- “(2) पद कᔾ व㔿 रण, श㙈्䵌ण⌿णकᔾ अ्䵩त␾ ए  श㙈रर〿रकᔾ म⸾पदण⍍ड :-स्䵩यकᔾ न सर्䵌कᔾ ए  न्䵌"्䵔पल :- (i) आ श㙍यकᔾ 32 श㙈्䵌ण⌿णकᔾ अ्䵩त␾(- (1) न⠿नम⹍नन⠿लण⌿,त␾ व㔿 षय. अቕ喋त␾ 0 (1) ज᱀2 व㔿 ሺ㪋न (2) भⵌ5न⠿त␾कᔾ श㙈ኚ验 (3) रसयन श㙈ኚ验 म⸾8 स" कᔾम⸾ स" कᔾम⸾ एकᔾ व㔿 षय कᔾ" सቕ喋 ्䵩यर स"कᔾ" ण⍍डर पर्䵌 य सम⸾कᔾ्䵌 उቈ䢍2ण ्䵩;न चᨾह㤿्䵩ए। (2) म⸾न⡍यत␾ ቚ媋्䵎 व㔿 ्䵫व㔿 ቕ喋लय स" न⠿नम⹍नन⠿लण⌿,त␾ व㔿 षय. अቕ喋त␾ 0 कᔾD व㔿ष, नस㡍पन⠿त␾ श㙈ኚ验, कᔾम⹍प⩍यGटर अनIቚ媋य;ग / व㔿 ሺ㪋न, पय रण व㔿 ሺ㪋न, न⠿नकᔾL, भⵌG-व㔿 ሺ㪋न, बⰾग न2, गण⌿णत␾, सण⌿NयकᔾL, भⵌ5न⠿त␾कᔾL, पश㙈I व㔿 ሺ㪋न, ቚ媋ण2 श㙈ኚ验 म⸾8 स" कᔾम⸾ स" कᔾम⸾ एकᔾ व㔿 षय कᔾ" सቕ喋 स㡍नत␾कᔾ य सम⸾कᔾ्䵌 अቕ喋  अन⠿भⵌयव㔿्䵔कᔾL / त␾कᔾन2कᔾL कᔾL ह㤿कᔾस2 भⵌ2 श㙈, / व㔿 षय म⸾8 स㡍नत␾कᔾ य सम⸾कᔾ्䵌 ्䵩;न चᨾह㤿्䵩ए। (ii) श㙈रर〿रकᔾ म⸾पदण⍍ड ( न⡍यGनत␾म⸾ ) :- पIरぁष म⸾ह㤿्䵩ल (एकᔾ) ऊਂ चᨾई (अनरण⌿्䵌त␾, अनIसGन⠿चᨾत␾ ज᱀न⠿त␾ ए  अन⡍य व㔿पछ़㱟 ग) 163 स".म⸾2. 150 स".म⸾2. (द;) ऊਂ चᨾई (अनIसGन⠿चᨾत␾ ज᱀नज᱀न⠿त␾) 152 स".म⸾2. 145 स".म⸾2. (त␾2न) स2न 79 स".म⸾2. 74 स".म⸾2. (चᨾर) न⡍यGनत␾म⸾ स2न व㔿 स㡍त␾र 5 स".म⸾2. 5 स".म⸾2. (पचᨾ) श㙈रर〿रकᔾ ्䵌म⸾त␾ पर्䵌ण, चᨾर घण⍍ट" पदल चᨾलन 26 ह㤿कᔾ.म⸾2. 16 ह㤿कᔾ.म⸾2. 29. A glance of qualifications incorporated under the advertisement, as extracted herein above, would reflect that the participating candidate is required to possess the 33 qualification of graduation from recognized Board or its equivalent examination. Apart from educational qualification, the minimum physical parameters relating to height/chest measurement for male female, 26 / 16 kilometer walk to be completed in 4 hours are also mentioned as requirement in the advertisement. The advertisement is specific that eligibility criteria must be fulfilled by an aspiring candidate. This advertisement does not contain any clause prescribing any relaxation with respect to eligibility criteria relaxing any of eligibility conditions specified in the advertisement at any later stage. 30. A conjoint reading of the recruitment rules and advertisement referred above, clearly shows that the essential qualifications provided in the advertisement in question are in consonance with the qualifications provided under the Rules of 2015. 31. Language used in Rule 11 (11) of the Rules of 2015 makes qualifying of minimum physical parameters, as envisaged therein, to be mandatory. 32. Having referred the Rules of 2015 and terms and conditions of the advertisement, now I will revert back to the facts of present case. 33. Respondent Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission advertised vacant posts of Assistant Conservator of Forest and Forest Ranger in Forest Department and as per selection 34 procedure, written examination and interview was to be conducted by the Public Service Commission and after clearing said written examination and interview, candidates were required to clear minimum physical parameters including of walk test, which was to be conducted by respondent Department. Pursuant to said advertisement, petitioners participated in written test, they cleared written examination and thereafter they were called for document verification and interview. After interview, they were called to appear for verification of documents and physical test. In the call letter dated 31.8.2023 issued to candidates for participating in physical test it is clearly mentioned that 26 kilometer walk by male candidates and 16 kilometer walk by female candidates, is to be completed within four hours. It was also clearly mentioned that second chance for walk test will not be granted. Petitioners in respective petitions, participated in physical test, qualified in physical measurement test, but they could not qualify physical caliber walk test as they failed to complete 26 kilometer or 16 kilometer walk in 4 hours, as the case may be. 34. Request of petitioners, who were unsuccessful in walk test, to grant another chance to undergo walk test was accepted by respondent No.2 vide letter dated 18.1.2024. Candidates, who are in wait list, have challenged the action of respondent 35 No.2 in giving another chance to unsuccessful candidates to undergo walk test by filing writ petitions before the High Court bearing WPS No.407/2024, 504/2024, 1076/2024 & 1577/2024 on the ground that there is no provision to give second chance to the candidates who have availed the first chance unsuccessfully. During pendency of writ petitions, by the impugned order, decision to grant another opportunity to participate in walk test has been cancelled / withdrawn by placing reliance on the recruitment Rules of 2015 wherein, there is no provision to grant another chance to a candidate who did not qualify prescribed minimum physical parameters. 35. Admittedly, the Rules of 2015 as also the advertisement required a candidate to qualify minimum physical parameter including walk test of 26 kms in case of male candidates and in case of female candidates 16 kms to be completed in four hours. Call letter dated 31.8.2023 issued to the candidates for appearing in physical test clearly stipulates that walk test is to be completed by the candidates within the time prescribed because second chance will not be given. There is nothing in the Rules of 2015 as also advertisement dated 10.6.2020 that in case a candidate remains unsuccessful in walk test in the first attempt, a second chance is available to him/her. Petitioners, who were declared unsuccessful in physical test, have not brought to the notice of this Court any 36 provision allowing more than one opportunity to the candidates to appear in physical test after failing to clear the same in first attempt or mentioned in any clause of advertisement. 36. Recruitment processes are to be strictly conducted under defined rules, which apply uniformly to all candidates. Granting a second opportunity to a candidate to reappear at a specific stage of a public competitive recruitment process, after having already been declared unsuccessful, is completely unheard of. In case at hand, walk test was conducted on a particular date and time. There may be several reasons for not performing to an optimum level on a particular date by particular candidate, but merely because some candidates were unable to perform upto their expectations on the date when the walk test was scheduled , that does not mean, that those candidates has to be afforded a subsequent opportunity to appear in the said test. Allowing any individual candidate to undergo the same test again at a later date would amount to granting undue advantage, thereby compromising the transparency, uniformity, and integrity of the selection process. Further, it would also amount to a clear departure from the stipulated conditions of the selection process and would effectively amount to 37 changing the rules of the game after the selection process has commenced. 37. In WP No.8848/2011, parties being Naresh Nigam vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others, decided on 27.2.2019, the petitioner therein, who was declared disqualified for the post of Forest Guard on the ground that he failed to clear qualifying walk in physical test within prescribed time of 4 hours, has sought for another chance for physical test. In such a situation, the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held thus:- “7. Upon perusal of the rules and from the record, we do not find any rule which provides for second chance to those candidates who have not qualified the physical fitness test or any relaxation in that regard. The petitioner referred Annexure P-1 dated 20-08-2008 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Bhopal to all the Conservator of Forests (Territorial) regarding recruitment of daily wager labours working in the department. Condition No.1 is very clear that only those daily wager labours working in the department shall be selected for appointment on the post of Forest Guard, who possess educational as well as physical qualification . Thus, there is no provision either in the Recruitment Rules or in any circular providing any kind of relaxation in physical fitness test.” 38. In case of Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that failure to qualify in the prescribed 38 physical test disentitle a candidate from claiming appointment and no subsequent relaxation or second chance can be claimed as a matter of right. Relevant para of said decision is quoted below:- “22. It is accepted position that the respondent appeared in the test and could not qualify. Once he did not qualify in the physical test, the High Court could not have asked the Department to give him an opportunity to hold another test to extend him the benefit of compassionate appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector solely on the ground that there has been efflux of time. The respondent after being disqualified in the physical test could not have claimed as a matter of right and demand for an appointment in respect of a particular post and the High Court could not have granted further opportunity after the crisis was over. 23.In our considered opinion, the order passed by the Division Bench is wholly unsustainable and is hereby set aside. We may, however, hasten to add that it is open to the respondent to compete in the normal course if eligible for the post of Sub-Inspector for promotion in accordance with the rules prescribed for promotion.” 39. In case of Bedanga Talukdar (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that appointments to public office must strictly comply with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, ensuring fairness and non-arbitrariness in the selection process. It was held that the terms and conditions 39 stipulated in the advertisement are binding and must be scrupulously followed. No relaxation of such conditions is permissible unless the power to relax is expressly provided either in the statutory rules or explicitly mentioned in the advertisement itself. It was observed thus:- “32. In the face of such conclusions, we have little hesitation in concluding that the conclusion recorded by the High Court is contrary to the facts and materials on the record. It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. Even if there is a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement. In the present case, no such rule has been brought to our notice. In such circumstances, the High Court could not have issued the impugned direction to consider the claim of Respondent 1 on the basis of identity card submitted after the selection process was over, with the publication of the select list. (emphasis supplied) 40. In case of Tej Prakash (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the ambit of the expression "changing the rules of the game" as under : “52. Thus, in our view, the appointing authority recruitment authority competent authority in absence of rules to the contrary, can devise a procedure for selection of a candidate suitable to the post and while doing so, it may also set benchmarks 40 for different stages of recruitment process including written examination and interview. However, if any such benchmark is set, the same should be stipulated before the commencement of the recruitment process…...” 41. In view of above rulings and in light of the facts of present case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the standard prescribed in the advertisement in respect of physical test, which is in consonance with the recruitment Rules of 2015, cannot be relaxed as it would amount to changing the rules of game in the midstream, which is impermissible, and the petitioners in respective writ petitions cannot be given a second chance. 42. So far a submission of learned counsel for petitioners in WPS No.6989/2024, 1698/2025, 5373/2024 & 7394 2024 respectively, that once decision is taken by the department to grant second chance to candidates for the reasons assigned in the proceeding, it cannot be reconsidered and cancelled, is concerned, the proceedings to provide second chance to unsuccessful candidates for physical caliber walk test is processed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest vide letter dated 15.9.2023, which is filed as Annexure P-9 in WPS No.7934/2024. Proposal forwarded for grant of second chance to 29 unsuccessful candidate and 19 candidates who were absent, was for the reason as mentioned therein that walk test was not organized in the sports ground/stadium, but 41 was in open road at Nawa Raipur, as it was a working day there was continuous movement of general public on road and on the said date, temperature was also high. Proposal was forwarded by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to the Chief Secretary, Department of Forest and Climate Chandge, Raipur. It further appears from the documents enclosed along with Annexure P-9 that amended proposal was called from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. In the amended proposal and synopsis, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest clearly mentioned that on the proposal forwarded to the General Administration Department, no opinion was given. Proposal also mentions to grant another opportunity to the candidates who did not appear on the date fixed for physical caliber test. Proceeding of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest dated 9.11.2023 further mentions that based on the direction issued by the Forest Minister, proposal and synopsis was forwarded to the General Administration Department and the General Administration Department clearly made note that there is no provision for giving second chance under the rules and therefore, they are having no opinion on the proposal. Even thereafter taking note of the Indian Forest Services (Joint) Exam 2020, noted that it will be appropriate to grant one more opportunity and accordingly, based on that noting, respondent No.2 issued the 42 order. Provisions of the Indian Forest Service Exam may be different. 43. Rule 21 of the Rules of 2015 provides for relaxation, according to which, nothing in these rules shall be construed to limit or abridge the power of the Governor to deal with the case of any person to whom these rules may apply in such manner as may appear to it to be just and proper. Even if relaxation clause under the Rules of 2015 is to be considered to be provision to relax some applicable provisions under the Rules of 2015, then it is vested only with the Governor. In the case at hand, if for any reason the respondent Department, despite the fact that the General Administration Department has not granted any opinion on the proposal forwarded, has arrived at a conclusion that in the projected circumstances, second opportunity for physical calibre test (walk test) can be granted, then the proceeding could have been forwarded to the Governor, but no such proceeding has been initiated. 44. In the aforementioned facts of the case, when there is specific provision under the statutory Rules of 2015 which provides for minimum physical standards including physical calibre test of walking, then the power to relax any rule or condition is to be exercised in the manner as provided under the Rules of 2015. In the matter of Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, reported in AIR 1936 PC 253 (2), it was observed that where a power is 43 given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. 45. In case of I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi (2007) 6 SCC 162, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus: “12….. Physical fitness being an essential eligibility criteria, the Superintendent of Police could not have made any recommendation in violation of the rules. Nothing has been shown before us that even the petitioner came within the purview of any provisions containing grant of relaxation of such qualification. Whenever, a person invokes such a provision, it would be for him to show that the authority is vested with such a power.” 46. From the facts, as discussed in preceding paras, it is clear that proposal to grant second chance to unsuccessful candidates of physical calibre test (walk), is processed only by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest even without there being any provision under the law. 47. Submission of learned counsel for petitioners (unsuccessful candidates), that step to review earlier decision has been taken only because the officer is changed, in the opinion of this Court, is not sustainable. If for any reason the outgoing officer has committed any mistake, initiated any proceeding contrary to the provisions of law, it is for the incumbent officer to initiate proceeding to rectify the same in accordance with law. In the case at hand also, after coming across the 44 procedure, which is not in accordance with the Rules of 2015 and clauses of advertisement, and further considering that in that proceeding the Deputy Secretary of General Administration Department after recording in detail and observing that appropriate action be taken against erring officer who attempted to provide undue benefit to disqualified candidates, has further mentioned that said proceeding of taking a decision to grant second opportunity of physical calibre test (walk test) to be contrary to law. It was placed before the Secretary wherein the Secretary in the note sheet dated 27.6.2024 after putting before the Forest Minister and bringing to his knowledge about relevant provisions and taking into consideration opinion of the General Administration Department, has recorded that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest be informed that department is in disagreement with the proposal to grant second chance/opportunity to unsuccessful candidates of physical calibre test (walk test). Accordingly, letter was also forwarded to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 20.6.2024. On 7.10.2024 a letter is written by the Department of Forest and Climate Change, that in view of letter dated 20.6.2024 decision taken in letter dated 18.1.2024 becomes automatically ineffective. 45 48. In the above facts and circumstances of the case and the manner of proceedings that had taken place with respect to grant of second chance/opportunity to unsuccessful candidates, which has been subsequently turned down by department itself and the corrective measure which has been taken by the department after reconsidering the proposal in the light of relevant rules, clauses of advertisement and opinion given by the General Administration Department, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be said that the order/letter dated 7.10.2024 of the department making earlier letter dated 18.1.2024 (giving second chance to unsuccessful candidates and absentees) ineffective is issued only because of change of view of the incumbent official. Decision taken is a conscious one after considering all the aspects of the matter including relevant rules, in particular sub-rule (11) of Rule 11 of the Rules of 2015. 49. So far as submission of learned counsel for respective petitioners that one Varsha Kashyap, who was absent in walk test conducted on 12.9.2023, has been granted chance to undergo walk test, is concerned, it is not disputed by learned Additional Advocate General for respondent State. Grant of opportunity to Varsha Kashyap is not under challenge. Even otherwise, negative parity cannot be claimed. 46 50. In case of R. Muthukumar and others vs Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 151, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:- "28. A principle, axiomatic in this country's constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality. In other words, if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality. In Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer14, this court ruled that: "8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated." 51. So far as decision dated 24.08.2022 of High Court of Gujarat in bunch of petitions, lead case being R/Special Civil Application No.4373/2022 (Gadhavi Narendra Kumar Hingaljdanji & 6 others vs State of Gujarat & 20 otherse), which is relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners (unsuccessful candidates), is concerned, in said case the 47 Court has taken note of special facts that appointed Forest Range Officers are continuously working for over six years; petitioners challenge to the appointment of private respondents may be belated; grievance of petitioners with regard to their seniority position needs to be addressed further. It was also observed that there is nothing in the Rules to suggest that second chance was available; the rules are silent is evident from the expressed provisions providing for second chance in the Indian Forest Services Rules. In this situation, the Court has observed that State has consciously not made any provision to grant second chance in the rules. Observation made in para-14 of said case in fact goes against the petitioners herein. Thus, the decision relied upon by concerned petitioners are distinguishable on facts. 52. So far as reliance on the decision dated 22.12.2023 delivered in bunch of appeals, lead case being R/Letters Patent Appeal No.1145/2022 (Trivedi Shailesh Kumar Rameshchandra vs State of Gujarat), by learned counsel for petitioners is concerned, in that case, Hon’ble Division Bench has considered the recruitment on the post of Forest Range Officer under the Gujarat Forest Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2020 under which Rule 5 (A) provides for minimum physical standards for direct selection which includes walk of 25 km for male and 14 kms for female. Under Rule 6, there is 48 clear mention that in case a candidate fails to complete the walk test within prescribed time limit or fails to appear in the test, shall be given one more chance to appear. Therefore, the case relied upon by petitioners is distinguishable on facts. 53. Decision of High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, dated 1.2.2013 in bunch of petition lead case being Service Single No.6542/2011 (Sudhakar Pandey vs the State of UP) is also of no help to petitioners being distinguishable on facts. In that case, physical efficiency test was conducted on different dates and different places. The Court took note of the fact that physical efficiency test was conducted in rainy condition and inspite of heavy rain, test was not stopped resulting in field being waterlogged and therefore, the pit falls, pit holes, muddy condition over the track was created. It was further taken note of that the Circular dated 20.7.2011 contained direction for choosing alternate field where there was no water logging etc., however, the physical efficiency test was conducted on the same field and track and no alternative field. 54. Decision dated 14.11.2018 in Civil Appeal (Writ) No.1732/2018, parties being Thawara Ram vs State of Rajasthan & ors, is also distinguishable on facts and of no help to petitioners. In that case, admit card was uploaded in the night of 4.9.2018, petitioner therein was to report from 49 District Sirohi to Jodhpur on the next date. Considering the fact that petitioner therein has to travel whole night and to participate in the physical efficiency test of 5 km run within stipulated time, it was observed that it amounts to denial of proper opportunity. 55. Decision rendered in case of Disha Panchal (supra) is also of no help being distinguishable on facts. In that case, grievance of candidates who participated in Common Law Test 2018 (CLAT), was that questions of examination did not appear on the screen at the start, and were intermittently disappearing and re-appearing; options to move to next question etc. stopped working intermittently;blank screens or frozen screens and software crashes; computers were dysfunctional and rebooting them did not help. 56. In the case at hand, there is no such technical difficulties on appearing of petitioners in physical test which was conducted in open place and all 211 candidates were asked to participate on one day, time and place. 57. Recently, in Civil Appeal No.4150/2026, parties being Commissioner, Delhi Police and another vs Uttam Kumar, decided on 2.4.2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that public employment is scarce, the stakes are high, when it comes to public employment and opportunities like these can be life changing for young people. When 50 chances are rare, one needs to grab them with both hands. The boundaries for exercise of discretion are well carved out beyond which the adjudicatory fora ought not to trench. Grace, charity or compassion ought to stay at a distance in matters of public employment, if a fair level playing field is to be secured. 58. After the cases are reserved for orders on 24.3.2026, written submissions on behalf of petitioners in WPS No.7394/2024 and 5373/2024 is handed over to the Reader of the Court, raising some additional grounds and placing reliance on decisions other than relied upon during course of hearing in the Court. As the submissions and decisions forming part of written submissions are not raised and relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for petitioners in aforementioned writ petitions, during the course of hearing when learned counsel for other side were also present, in the opinion of this Court, the same cannot be taken into consideration as it will deprive the other side to meet the said arguments and submit on those decisions. Therefore, written submission submitted on behalf of petitioners in aforementioned writ petitions is not considered by this Court while passing the order. 59. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, in the opinion of this Court, there is no merit in WPS Nos.5373/2024, 51 6989/2024, 7384/24, 7394/2024, 7896/2024 and the same are hereby dismissed. 60. So far as WPS No.7896/2025 & 3460/2025 are concerned, the same are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take appropriate expeditious steps for filling up the posts under the advertisement dated 10.6.2020, which continued to remain vacant owing to operation of interim order passed by this Court, considering the recommendation made by respondent PSC, from wait list candidates, in accordance with law. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-