logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Ch HC 196 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case No : WPS No. 6349 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU
Parties : Ramfal Kewat & Another Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Raipur (C.G.) & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: Harish Khuntiya, Advocate. For the Respondents: Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer, R4, Suyashdhar Badgaiyan, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 08-10-2026
Head Note :-
Comparative Citation:
2026 CGHC 43680,
Judgment :-

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

          "10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order, thereby setting- aside/quashing the impugned list (Annexure P/1) so far as relates to declaring the petitioners as ineligible for the post of Block Project Manager pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.03.2026.

          10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 4 to allow the petitioners to participate in the selection process for the post of Block Project Manager by treating them as eligible.

          10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given."

2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to respondent No. 4 to permit him to participate in the selection process for the post of Block Project Manager by treating him as eligible in respect of the prescribed age limit. The petitioner has also sought quashment of the rejection of his candidature on the ground that he was over-aged for the post in question.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as on 01.01.2026, the petitioner were aged about 42 years and 38 years respectively. He submits that, in terms of the Circular dated 03.08.2024, the maximum age limit for candidates who were already working on contractual assignments under the State Government, its departments or corporations was prescribed as 38 years. However, during the pendency of the present writ petition, the State Government issued a subsequent Circular dated 16.09.2026 (Annexure P/8), whereby the maximum age limit for such contractual employees was extended from 38 years to 45 years.

4. It is further submitted that since the recruitment process initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.03.2026 has not yet been concluded, the benefit of the subsequent Circular dated 16.09.2026 ought to be extended to the petitioner and his candidature ought to be considered accordingly.

5. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, referring to the Circular dated 16.09.2026 (Annexure P/8), submit that the benefit of enhancement of the age limit from 38 years to 45 years would be available only from the date of issuance of the said Circular. It is contended that the recruitment process had already commenced pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.03.2026 and, therefore, the subsequent Circular dated 16.09.2026 would not be applicable to the petitioner.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, including the order/rejection of the petitioner's candidature and the Circular dated 16.09.2026 issued by the State Government.

7. From perusal of the rejection of the petitioner's candidature, it appears that, as on the cut-off date, i.e. 01.01.2026, prescribed in the advertisement, the petitioner had crossed the age of 38 years. Since the petitioner was continuing on contractual assignment, his candidature was rejected by applying the Circular dated 03.08.2024, which prescribed the maximum age limit of 38 years for candidates working on contractual assignments.

8. However, subsequently, the State Government issued the Circular dated 16.09.2026 (Annexure P/8), whereby the maximum age limit for candidates already working on contractual assignments under the State Government, its departments or corporations has been extended from 38 years to 45 years.

9. It is not in dispute that the recruitment process initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.03.2026 has not yet been concluded and is still at an initial stage. In such circumstances, when the State Government itself has subsequently extended the permissible age limit for candidates working on contractual assignments and the selection process is yet to be completed, this Court is of the considered view that the benefit of the subsequent Circular dated 16.09.2026 deserves to be extended to the petitioners for the purpose of consideration of his candidature in the ongoing selection process.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No. 4 is directed to reconsider the candidature of the petitioners in the light of the Circular dated 16.09.2026, the enhanced age limit prescribed therein, in accordance with law and the applicable roster, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioners are otherwise eligible for the said recruitment process they may be permitted to participate in the recruitment process started pursuance to advertisement dated 27.03.2026.
 
  CDJLawJournal