1 2026:CGHC:8615 NAFR Order reserved on 12.02.2026 Order delivered on 17/02/2026 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6748 of 2025 1. Saket Agrawal S/o Santosh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 34 Years R/o Street 3a, Sindhya Nagar, Near Mohan Mishthan Bhandar, Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar - Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Secretary Department Of Commerce And Industries, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar - Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh For Chhattisgarh Government 3. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar - Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh For Chhattisgarh Government 4. The Chairman Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, North Block, Sector-19 Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh 5. The Secretary Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, North Block, Sector-19 Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh 6. Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, North Block, Sector-19 Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh 7. Kanan Verma Aged About 38 Years Roll No. 2401100758, Through The Secretary, CG Public Service Commission, North Block, Sector-19 Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar (CG) ... Respondents SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2026.02.17 19:23:38 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Amrito Das, Mr. Hemant Kumar Agarwal and Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Advocates For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent No.4 to 6 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Manoj V Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Apoorva Ghore, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu C A V Order 1. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that pursuant to advertisement dated 23.10.2024 issued by the respondent Public Service Commission inviting applications for appointment on the post of ‘Boiler Inspector’, petitioner submitted his application to the said post. Petitioner along with respondent No.7 participated in selection process as unreserved category candidates. After completion of selection process, respondent No.7 was selected for appointment to the post of Boiler Inspector. Petitioner has been shown to be at Sr. No.1 in wait list. Challenging selection of respondent No.7, petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “A. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned result notification bearing No. 240/04/Selection/2025 dated 06.06.2025 & the No. release bearing 241/04/Selection/2025 dated 06.06.2025 ANNEXURE P/1 (Colly.)) published by the respondent no. 06 vide which the private respondent No. 07 has been illegally selected for 3 the post of Boiler Inspector (Department of Commerce & Industries) despite him not fulfilling the eligibility conditions because the said impugned result notification dated 06.06.2025 & the connected press release dated 06.06.2025 [ANNEXURE P/1 (Colly-]] is/are illegal, bad, perverse, arbitrary and against the actual facts and the law. B. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent competent authorities to select the petitioner for the post of the Boiler Inspector (Department of Commerce & Industries) as he fulfills all the eligibility conditions for the said post in question. C. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent competent authorities not to publish any notification/advertisement/office new memo pertaining to the posts of Boiler Inspector (Department of Commerce & Industries) till the joining/appointment of the petitioner to the post of Boiler Inspector (Department of Commerce & Industries). D. Cost of the petition. E. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted in favor of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that respondent No.7 was not eligible candidate as per eligibility criteria fixed in the advertisement. According to Clause-4 of the advertisement, maximum age prescribed is 30 years and for 4 residents of Chhattisgarh, maximum age limit prescribed is 35 years. It also provides for relaxation in age as mentioned therein. On the date of submission of application form, respondent No.7 was aged about 36 years 02 months and 29 days, as such, he was not eligible to participate in selection process. It is further contention of learned counsel for petitioner that age limit as mentioned in the advertisement is in accordance with the Rules known as Chhattisgarh Rajya Washpyantra Nirikshakaly Sewa (Rajpatrit) Bharti Tatha Padounnati Niyam, 2013 (for short ‘the Rules of 2013’). In reply submitted on behalf of respondent No.4 to 6 (Public Service Commission), a plea has been taken that respondent No.7 was extended benefit of relaxation in age limit under Clause 4 (ii) of the advertisement as he was an employee of National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC). Age relaxation benefit extended to respondent No.7 is erroneous. Clause relied upon by respondent PSC for extending benefit of age relaxation only talks of permanent/temporary/work- charge or contingency paid employees as well as employees of Corporations / Boards of State of Chhattisgarh. National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC) is not a department or board or corporation of State of Chhattisgarh and therefore, petitioner is not entitle for the age relaxation under this clause. 5 3. He also contended that respondent No.7 in his reply has pleaded that he is entitled for age relaxation under Clause-4 of the advertisement on the ground that he is an educated unemployed person and therefore, maximum age limit for him would be 40 years, as mentioned in advertisement. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that age relaxation of further five years for unemployed youth is based on Circular issued by the General Administration Department dated 18.1.2024. As per details of respondent No.7, as is appearing in the copy of application form placed on record by respondent No.4, it is apparent that respondent No.7 has clearly mentioned in his application form that he is employed as Executive ‘A’ in Power Plant Operation Department. 4. In the documents obtained online from the Income Tax Department pertaining to respondent No.7 under the head of ‘Annual Tax Statement’, it is evident that petitioner had a total credit of Rs.13,02,706/- in his account in the financial year 2023-24; income of respondent No.7 on the date of submission of application form, was more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month; and therefore, he cannot be treated as an unemployed youth. 5. It is also argued by learned counsel for petitioner that the State Government has floated a scheme granting unemployment allowance of Rs.2,500/- per month to 6 educated unemployed youth of Chhattisgarh. Referring to Anenxure P-13, it is argued that under said scheme a person can be treated as unemployed youth when he is having no source of income of his own; annual income of his family from all sources should not exceed Rs.2,50,000/- and further, family members of other professionals like Engineer, Doctors, Lawyers, Chartered Accountant and Architects or registered with professional bodies will be ineligible for employment allowance. In the aforementioned facts, from any angle, respondent No.7 cannot be treated to be unemployed youth and therefore, action on the part of respondent PSC in extending benefit to respondent No.7 of age relaxation under clause 4 (ii) of the advertisement and also claim of respondent No.7 that he is entitled for age relaxation under Clause 4 of the advertisement being an unemployed youth is erroneous. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.7 would submit that respondent No.7 being permanent resident of Chhattisgarh is entitled for age relaxation, which is available and prescribed in the advertisement for the candidates who are unemployed youth and residents of Chhattisgarh. He contended that submission of learned counsel for petitioner that respondent no.7 is employed and earning is incorrect. Referring to copy of application form annexed along with 7 return by respondent PSC, he submits that from the contents of application it is apparent that respondent No.7 has clearly disclosed that presently he is not the employee of any board, corporation, or department of the State of Chhattisgarh. Further, description with regard to employer and the post which is holding, as mentioned in application, is a temporary employment and not a permanent employment, therefore, respondent No.7 comes within the category of unemployed youth as mentioned in the advertisement. Petitioner cannot get any benefit, if for any reason, respondent PSC has applied wrong clause of advertisement i.e. Clause 4 (ii) in place of Clause- 4 while extending benefit of age relaxation to respondent No.7. When once respondent No.7 is entitled for benefit of age relaxation as per terms of advertisement, which is granted to respondent No.7, may be by applying wrong clause, then benefit of age relaxation granted to respondent No.7 cannot be withdrawn for the mistake of others when he is entitle under other clause. 7. He contended that respondent No.7 in his reply clearly pleaded that allegation made by petitioner that respondent no.7 is employed in NMDC Steel Limited is vague, unsubstantiated and is made with an oblique motive. Respondent No.7 is engaged in free lance consultancy work utilizing his technical expertise in relevant field on assignment 8 basis to earn his livelihood. Hence, it cannot be said that respondent No.7 is holding any regular or salaried post with NMDC or any other organization. There is no error on the part of respondent PSC in extending benefit of age relaxation of 05 years to respondent No.7, to which he is otherwise entitled for under clause-4 being an employed youth. 8. Learned counsel for respondent Public Service Commission would submit that based on details mentioned by respondent No.7 in his application form i.e. his employment with Corporation, age relaxation of 5 years is extended to him under Clause 4 (ii) of the advertisement. There is no error on the part of respondent PSC. Even if argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioner is to be accepted, though not, then also being an unemployed youth of Chhattisgarh, respondent No.7 is entitled for benefit of age relaxation of 5 years i.e. he can be considered to be eligible up to 40 years of age. Referring to Annexure R4-4, it is submitted that in the meeting of Legal Cell dated 30.6.2025, presided over by President and other four members, a decision is taken that respondent No.7 is working as Executive-A in NMDC Steel Limited and therefore, in accordance with Notification issued by the State Government, forming part of advertisement, respondent No.7 was extended benefit of age relaxation upto 38 years following natural justice. In these circumstances, the 9 decision taken by respondent PSC to extend benefit of age relaxation to respondent No.7 up to 38 years of age cannot be said to be erroneous. 9. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents available in record of writ petition. 10.Undisputed facts in this case are that respondent Public Service Commission vide advertisement dated 23.10.2024 invited application from eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Boiler Inspector. Eligibility criteria for submitting application by the candidates is specifically prescribed in advertisement which includes educational qualification as also maximum age limit. It is also not in dispute that in the advertisement cut-off date for calculation of age of a candidate is also specifically mentioned as ‘1.1.2024’. Admittedly, on the date of submission of application form, age of respondent No.7 was 36 years 02 months and 29 days. Respondent Public Service Commission has taken a stand that though respondent No.7 was 36 years 02 months and 29 days old on the date of submission of application pursuant to advertisement, but he was extended benefit of age relaxation under Clause 4 (ii) of the advertisement. 11.Clause 4 (ii) of the advertisement is relevant in the given facts of case and defence taken by respondent Public Service 10 Commissioner, therefore, the same is extracted below for ready reference:- “(ii) छቈ䢍सगढ∼ श㘾 सन कᕇ स㡍थ┾ य⽀ / अस㡍थ┾ य⽀ / वकᕇ चᨾ ्䵌 य⽀ कᕇ टἿ्䵌स प⩇ड कᕇ्䵞चᨾ र〿य⽀ तथ┾ छቈ䢍सगढ∼  जᱍय⽀ कᕇ टἿनग्䵞/्䵞डो䬴 आटἿ# कᕇ कᕇ्䵞चᨾ र〿य⽀ कᕇ सबⰂध ्䵞 उचᩍचᨾत्䵞 आय⽀( स्䵞 38 व्䵧 ह㥇ग। य⽀ह㥇 अध✿धकᕇत्䵞 आय⽀( प⩇र〿य⽀-्䵌न कᕇ य⽀ न⡍वय⽀न सटἿ्䵞टἿत कᕇ अतगत कᕇ य⽀त कᕇ्䵞चᨾ र〿य⽀ कᕇ ध✿ो䬴ए भⵀ स㡍वकᕇ य⽀ ह㥇-ग। 12. Perusal of aforementioned extracted clause of advertisement would show that it clearly provides relaxation to the candidates working as permanent, temporary, work-charged and contingency paid employees in any department of the State of Chhattisgarh. It further applies to the candidates who are working in Corporation or Board of the State. This clause provides for maximum age up to 38 years for an application of such category. 13. In view of rival contention made by learned counsel for respective parties, it is to be considered whether respondent Public Service Commission has rightly extended benefit of age relaxation to respondent No.7 even after recording that he is employed as Executive-A in NMDC Steel Limited. 14. The word ‘State’ is defined under Rule 2 (.k) of the Rules of 2013 which means the Chhattisgarh State. It is not the claim of respondent No.7 that NMDC Steel Limited is an organization or corporation or board of the State Government 11 of Chhattisgarh. Rule 8 of the Rules of 2013 talks of eligibility conditions for direct recruitment. Rule 8 (1) provides for age. Rule 8 (1) (>) is pari materia to Clause 4 (ii) of the advertisement which provides for age relaxation and the same is quoted herein below:- “(झ) ऐस अभⵍय⽀थ┾4 ्䵌- छቈ䢍सगढ∼  जᱍय⽀ टἿनग्䵞 / ्䵞ण⍍डो䬴 कᕇ कᕇ्䵞चᨾ  ह㥇6, कᕇ सबⰂध उचᩍचᨾत आय⽀( स्䵞 38 व्䵧 कᕇ7 आय⽀( तकᕇ टἿश㘾ध✿थ┾ो䬴नय⽀ ह㥇-ग।" 15. A conjoint reading of clause 4 (ii) of advertisement and Rule 8 (1) (>) of the Rules of 2013 makes it clear that age relaxation is provided under above clauses to the candidates working in the corporation/ board of the State of Chhattisgarh. Admittedly, respondent No.7 was not working in any institution, board or corporation of State Government of Chhattisgarh. It is also not the case of respondent No.7. Therefore, in the above facts of the case and unambiguous provision of age relaxation under Rule 8 (1) (>) of the Rules of 2013 and age relaxation clause mentioned in the advertisement, respondent Public Service Commission erred in granting age relaxation benefit under Clause 4 (ii) of the advertisement to respondent No.7. 16. It is well settled that recruitment proceeding is to be initiated by the employer strictly in accordance with terms of 12 advertisement and following provisions under statutory rules in this regard. In case of Bedanga Talukdar vs Saifudaullah Khan and others, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:- “30. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in directing that the condition with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either along with the application form or before appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of respondent No. 1. Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 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 13 claim of respondent No.1 on the basis of identity card submitted after the selection process was over, with the publication of the select list.” In case at hand, no material has been placed before this Court to show that the power is vested in respondent PSC to relax any of the clauses of the advertisement, which are in consonance with the Rules of 2013. 17. In the above facts of the case and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, action on the part of respondent Public Service Commission extending benefit of relaxation in age limit to respondent No.7 by invoking clause 4 (ii) of the advertisement is not sustainable and accordingly, it is hereby set aside. Respondent No.7 is not entitled for benefit of relaxation in age limit under Clause 4 (ii) of the advertisement and Rule 8 (1) (>) of the Rules of 2013. 18. Now coming to defence of respondent No.7, as raised before this Court, that respondent No.7 is entitled for benefit of relaxation in age limit as per Clause 4 of the advertisement being unemployed youth. Respondent No.7 himself in his application form submitted with respondent Public Service Commission pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure P-2) has clearly mentioned while giving details of ‘Work Experience’ that he has worked on the post of ‘Executive-A’ in Power Plant Operation from 06.12.2022 to 30.10.2024. 14 Though these details are mentioned under the column ‘Work Experience’, nonetheless it clearly demonstrates that petitioner was employed as Executive-A in Department of Power Plant Operation. Application placed on record by respondent Public Service Commission would clearly show that application form was submitted by respondent No.7 on 30.10.2024 at about 9:32 hrs i.e. in the morning, therefore, on the date of submission of application form, respondent No.7 was working on the post of Executive-A in Department of Power Plant Operation. 19. The words ‘unemployed youth’ forming part of advertisement under Clause-4 are to be considered in the facts and circumstances of case. In common parlance ‘educated unemployed youth’ means a person who has completed formal education such as graduation or post-graduation and is without any employment, actively seeking employment and available to start a job and is not finding work, reflecting a gap in economic opportunities. 20. Advertisement for employment, which is subject mater of writ petition, is issued by the State Government. The State Government has floated a scheme for grant of unemployment allowance of Rs.2,500/- per month to educated unemployed youth of the Chhattisgarh. A copy of scheme as floated by the State is placed on record as Annexure P-13 to writ 15 petition. Perusal of the same would show that it is a print out taken from official website of the Employment Department of the State. Eligibility conditions for unemployment allowance are mentioned which includes that applicant should not have any source of income of his own and annual income of applicant’s family from all sources should not exceed Rs.2,50,000/-. Eligibility condition under scheme clearly provides that educated unemployed youth not having any source of income and further income of family should not exceed Rs.2,50,000/-. Aforementioned document further provides for ineligibility conditions for unemployment allowance. It excludes the person whose family members are registered with professional bodies as Engineer, Doctor, Lawyer, Chartered Accountant and Architect. 21. Submission made by learned counsel for petitioner based on the documents enclosed along with covering memo dated 9.7.2025 i.e. annual tax assessment of respondent No.7, is not disputed by learned counsel for respondent No.7. General rule is that, fact pleaded if not disputed by other side in categorical terms, would mean said fact is admitted by other side. Perusal of tax assessment would show that tax has been deducted at source by Mecon Limited from the amount credited in the account of respondent No.7. In financial year 2023-24 total amount paid/credited in the 16 account of respondent No.7 is shown as Rs.13,02,706/- and total TDS deposited is shown to be Rs.1,30,272/- Conjoint reading of two documents i.e. annual tax assessment as also details of wok experience, as mentioned in application form submitted by respondent No.7 with respondent PSC, would show that respondent No.7 is continuously employed since 2018 as Assistant Manager, Boiler Operation Engineer and lastly on the date of submission of application form, he was working as Executive A in a Power Plant Operation Department. Thus, respondent no.7 was not an unemployed youth rather he is a person with employment having earning of Rs.13,02,706/- as annual income on the date of submission of application form pursuant to the advertisement, Annexure P-2. 22. Age relaxation as provided under clause 4 of the advertisement for educated unemployed youth is to extend benefit to an educated person who could not able to get any job based on his qualification and therefore, the State Government has taken a decision to give more opportunities to participate in the recruitment process then those persons who are otherwise qualified and doing some work or engaged with any body, agency or company as an employee. 23. For the discussions made in preceding paragraphs and considering that respondent No.7 was working as Executive-A 17 in Power Plant Operation Department, as per information supplied by respondent No.7 himself in application form, having income of Rs.13,02,706/-; submission of learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.7 that respondent No.7 is otherwise entitled for age relaxation of five years under Clause 4 of the advertisement, which is also supported by learned counsel for respondent PSC, is not sustainable and accordingly, this submission is hereby repelled. 24. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Selection of respondent No.7 as Boiler Inspector pursuant to advertisement, Annexure P-2, is hereby set aside. Respondent No.7 is held ineligible to participate in selection process / recruitment process being overage. Respondent Public Service Commission is directed to issue fresh select list of candidates based on proceeding concluded pursuant to advertisement dated 23.10.2024 Annexure P-2 wherein petitioner is shown as wait list candidate at Sr. No.1, expeditiously within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-