Dismissed¶44

Sunil Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Mar 2025WA/176/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lecturer (Panchayat) recruitment (advertisement 02.07.2017, Zila Panchayat Baloda Bazar, Commerce subject): candidature rejected as over-aged — applicant aged 46 years 11 months 4 days (DOB 28.01.1970) against State Government circular cap of 45 years after all relaxations; contention that Central Government policy allows relaxation up to 56 years for physically disabled persons did not prevail; Single Judge's dismissal in Writ Petition (S) No.434 of 2018 upheld; intra-court writ appeal dismissed (Chhattisgarh High Court, 12.03.2025).

What did the court decide?

As on the date of filing of the application the appellant was aged about 46 years, 11 months and 4 days, and as such he is not entitled to any relief claimed by him in the writ appeal. ¶42

Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant was eligible for the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) (Commerce) despite his candidature being rejected on the ground that he was over-aged beyond 45 years on the date of filing of the application, the appellant contending that under Central Government policy age relaxation can be extended up to 56 years in case of physical disability. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

As on the date of filing of the application the appellant was aged about 46 years, 11 months and 4 days, and as such he is not entitled to any relief claimed by him in the writ appeal.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

Since the State Government circular dated 23.01.2017 categorically mentions that age relaxation for appointment in Government service should not exceed 45 years after giving all relaxations, the learned Single Judge rightly passed the impugned order dismissing the writ petition.

¶42

Key takeaways

In an intra Court appeal no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned orders; on a plain reading of the order no such palpable infirmities or perversities were noticed, and the Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.434 of 2018.ratio¶43
The writ appeal lacks merit substance and is dismissed.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, WA No. 176 of 2025 (neutral cit. 2025:CGHC:12285-DB), decided 12.03.2025 — Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice, with Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge. Intra-court appeal against the order dated 19.12.2024 of the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition (S) No.434 of 2018. The appellant had applied in response to the advertisement dated 02.07.2017 for the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) in Commerce subject under Zila Panchayat, Baloda Bazar; his candidature was rejected because, on the date of filing the application, he was over-aged — aged 46 years, 11 months and 4 days (date of birth 28.01.1970) — beyond the ceiling of 45 years after all relaxations categorically laid down in the State Government circular dated 23.01.2017, whereas he invoked Central Government policy permitting age relaxation up to 56 years for physically disabled persons. The Division Bench held the Single Judge's dismissal well-founded, noticed no palpable infirmity warranting interference in an intra-court appeal, and dismissed the writ appeal.

2025:CGHC:12285-DB

NAFR

Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2025.03.12 17:53:48 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WA No. 176 of 2025

¶7

Sunil Kumar Sharma S/o Mr. Shriram Dayal Sharma Aged About 46 Years R/o Near Gaushala, Bazarpara, Neora, Tehsil Tilda, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh (Father Name Wrongly Mentioned In Order Copy)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary of Panchayat, Mahanadi Bhavan, Capitol Complex, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Zila Panchayat Baloda Bazar, Through Chief Executive Officer, Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through Chairman, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

(Cause-title t	aken from Case Information System)
For Appellant	:Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate
For State/respondents No.1 & 2	:Mr. Sangharsh Pandey Government Advocate
For Respondent No.3	:Ms. Akansha Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

¶16

Judgment on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

12.03.2025

¶19

1. Heard Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard

¶20

Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing

¶21

¶22

for the State/respondents No.1 and 2 as well as Ms. Akansha Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Avinash Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

¶23

2. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):

¶24

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 19/12/24 (Annexure A-1) illegal on the face of record and/or direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the appellant herein made for the appointment to the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) and/or pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶25

3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.434 of 2018 ( Sunil Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh and others ), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed.

¶26

4. The case projected by the writ petitioner/appellant before the learned Single Judge is that on 02.07.2017, an advertisement was issued by the respondents authorities for the post of Lecturer (Panchayat), District wise, for different subjects. The appellant/writ petitioner had applied for the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) in Commerce subject under the Zila Panchayat, Baloda Bazar,

¶27

¶28

Chhattisgarh. In the said advertisement, there are certain other conditions mentioned wherein the maximum age limit fixed for the candidates was fixed as 35 years on 01.01.2017 and the age relaxation was given in respect of physically handicapped candidates for 10 years not exceeding 45 years of age. Thereafter, during selection process, candidature of the appellant/writ petitioner was rejected on the ground that on the date of filing of the application, he was over-aged as crossing the age of 45 years.

¶29

5. Being aggrieved with his non-selection in the said advertisement, the appellant/writ petitioner was filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.434 of 2018, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.12.2024.

¶30

6. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant.

¶31

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that the appellant/writ petitioner was eligible for the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) as he was not over-aged on the date of filing of the application, but the respondent authorities have not considered his name, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It has been contended that the date of birth of the appellant/writ petitioner is 28.01.1970 and on the date of presentation of the application, his

¶32

¶33

age though was 46 years, 11 months and 4 days, but according to the policy of the Central Government, the age relaxation can be extended upto 56 years for appointment of any post in case of any physical disability. Therefore, the action on the part of the respondent authorities appears to be discriminatory. It has been further contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in not directing the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner, as such, appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, be setaside.

¶34

8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the State Government has issued a circular dated 23.01.2018, according to which, the age relaxation for appointment in the Government service should not be exceeded 45 years after giving all relaxations. He further submits that on the date of filing of the application, appellant/writ petitioner was aged about 46 years, 11 months and 4 days as his date of birth is 28.01.1970. He lastly contended that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference.

¶35

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record as also the circular dated 23.01.2017 issued by the State Government.

¶36

¶37

10. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:-

¶38

“ From perusal of the material available on record, it is quite vivid that the conditions & rules mentioned in the advertisement have been framed by the State Government wherein the age prescribed after relaxation is 45 years of age for disabled person but on the date of filing of the application for the post of Lecturer (Commerce), the petitioner was above 45 years of age. It is also to be considered that the rules as framed by the Central Government would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the rules framed by the State Government he needs to challenge the rules and has to prefer an appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum. As such, nothing requires for adjudication in the instant petition.

¶39

7. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ”

¶40

11. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perusing the impugned order as well as the circular issued by the State Government dated 23.01.2017, in which, it has been categorically mentioned that the age relaxation for appointment in

¶41

¶42

the Government service should not be exceeded more than 45 years after giving all relaxations, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order dismissing the writ petition of the appellant/writ petitioner as on the date of filing of the application, the appellant/writ petitioner was aged about 46 years, 11 months and 4 days, as such, he is not entitled for any relief claimed by him in this writ appeal.

¶43

12. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an intra Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned orders. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.434 of 2018.

¶44

13. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶45

Sd/Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha ) Judge Chief Justice

¶46

Anu

Sunil Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asim Das Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Shivani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Nandini Mandelkar Vs Director of Public Instruction

Nakul Kaivartya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh Tourism Board Vs State of Chhattisgarh