Paul Mikki Kujur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:54301

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 12553 of 2025

¶6

Paul Mikki Kujur S/o Fransis Kujur Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Mahavirpur, Post- Ajabnagar, Tahsil- Latori, Police Station- Jaynagar, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Director General Home Guards, Civil Defense, Fire And Emergency Services And State Disaster, Response Force, Sector 19, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Chairperson Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Raipur, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Controller Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Raipur, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate For State : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. Government Advocate

¶15

For Respondents/CGVYAPAM : Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

07.11.2025

¶19

The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition to direct respondent No. 2 to issue appropriate order/corrigendum granting relaxation in height invoking power contained in remark appended with

¶20

Digitally signed by BHUMIKA BHUMIKA ANGARE ANGARE Date: 2025.11.21 11:04:51 +0530

¶21

2

¶22

Rule 8(3) of the Chhattisgarh Fire and Emergency Service and State Disaster Response Force Class-III Non Gazetted Executive Service Recruitment Rules and Promotion Rules, 2017 (in brief “Rules of 2017”) and also to direct respondent No. 2 to permit him to participate in the further recruitment process with respect to post of Station Officer (Sub Inspector) pursuant to advertisement issued on 12.06.2025.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has participated in the selection process for appointment in the post of Station Officer (Sub Inspector) in Home Guards, Fire & Emergency Services and SDRF Headquarters, Chhattisgarh. He would further submit that as per the advertisement minimum height prescribed for male candidate is 168 cm or above whereas the petitioner’s height is 164.8 cm as such he was not considered to participate in the further selection process. He would further submit that Rule 8(3) of the recruitment rules namely Chhattisgarh Fire and Emergency Service and State Disaster Response Force and Promotion Rules, 2017 provides the physical capacity/qualifications according to which height of male candidate should be 168 cm or above and there is note with regard to grant relaxation in height of the candidate. He would further submit that he has preferred a representation on 23.09.2025 claiming relaxation and would pray for granting relaxation with regard to height of the petitioner.

¶24

Learned counsel for the State opposing the submission would submit that looking to the gravity and reasons of the duty to be discharged in the fire services which may require a suitable height to overcome with the untoward situation which may occur when there is an epidemic or fire, thus he would submit that height which has been fixed in the

¶25

3

¶26

advertisement and the rules does not require to be re-determined by this Court. Even otherwise for determining the eligibility criteria which has been fixed in the advertisement and the rule does not require to be re-determined by this Court as fixing of eligibility criteria for appointment on particular post falls within the domain of the State i.e. the employer and the interference of the Court in this field is very limited. He would further submit that even otherwise, the respondents being the employer has to engage an employee according to his convenience and administrative exigency for which recruitment has to be made, therefore, reduction in the height cannot be granted. He would further submit that though the petitioner is claiming relaxation but it is well settled position of law that relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is always subjected to satisfaction and within certain parameters of law, therefore, the writ petition sans merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection.

¶28

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court may reduce height of a Scheduled Tribe candidate due to their anatomy and climate condition where they are residing is misconceived and deserves to be rejected as it is for the employer to fix the criteria and qualification according to its convenience and its need, therefore, no interference is permissible unless it is shown that it is arbitrary or suffer from acute malafide or contrary to the recruitment rules which is not the situation in the present case.

¶29

Further contention of the petitioner that as per Rule 8(3) of the Rules of 2017, the Director General of Police has power to grant relaxation as

¶30

4

¶31

such a direction for relaxation should be issued by this Court, is being considered now. It is not in dispute that relaxation power is granted under the Rules by the Director General of Police, as such no writ of mandamus can be issued as it is a discretionary matter, therefore it is directed that the respondent shall consider the representation of the petitioner on its own merit wherein he has claimed relaxation of height.

¶32

It is made clear that this Court has not decided the case on merit as relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

¶33

With this observation and direction, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶36

Judge

¶37

Bhumika

Paul Mikki Kujur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paul Mikki Kujur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandini Dhritlahre Vs Dr. Vijay Khandelwal

Smt. Karishma Korram Vs Miss Divya Umesh Mishra

Ashok Kumar Ubrani Vs Rameshwar Prasad Tiwari dead Legal Representatives Rajendra Prasad Tiwari And Ors.

Smt. Basanti Vs Mr. Bheem Singh

Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh Kushwaha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Akhileshwar Sonwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh