Dismissed¶43

Abhinav Tripathi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Jan 2025WPS/257/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPS No. 257 of 2025, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey, decided 20.01.2025. Age relaxation; eligibility; Civil Judge (Junior Division) recruitment; CGPSC advertisement dated 23.12.2024 for 57 posts; upper age 35 years as on 01.01.2025; Rule 7 and Section 2(f) of the C.G. Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006; 'Government' means Government of Chhattisgarh; Jharkhand government servant not eligible; circular dated 18.01.2024 (Annexure P/2) for educated unemployed persons of Chhattisgarh; petition dismissed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner, admittedly a Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the State of Jharkhand, would not come within the definition of Government Servant of the State of Chhattisgarh. ¶39

Abhinav Tripathi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a Civil Judge (Junior Division) serving under the State of Jharkhand who has completed 35 years of age on 01.01.2025, is entitled to age relaxation so as to be allowed to participate in the C.G. Public Service Commission recruitment for 57 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) advertised on 23.12.2024.

¶19

Court's answer

The petitioner, admittedly a Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the State of Jharkhand, would not come within the definition of Government Servant of the State of Chhattisgarh.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

Having completed more than 35 years of age on 01.01.2025, the petitioner is not eligible, as per Rule 7 of the Rules, 2006 and one of the conditions of the advertisement, to participate in the recruitment process.

¶41

Key takeaways

The circular dated 18.01.2024 (Annexure P/2) granting relaxation of 35+5 years applies only to educated unemployed persons of the State of Chhattisgarh; the petitioner, being a Government Servant in the State of Jharkhand, would not get any benefit from that circular.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Inter-state government servant denied age relaxation in Chhattisgarh judicial recruitment — 'Government Servant' means servant of the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner, working as Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-J.M. at Garhwa (Jharkhand), sought relaxation of age to participate in the recruitment for 57 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) advertised by the C.G. Public Service Commission on 23.12.2024, the upper age limit being 35 years as on 01.01.2025. Held: under Rule 7 of the C.G. Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 and the conditions of the advertisement, a person in the service of another State is not a 'Government Servant' of the State of Chhattisgarh ('Government' under Section 2(f) means the Government of Chhattisgarh); the petitioner, having already completed 35 years of age on 01.01.2025, is ineligible to participate. The circular dated 18.01.2024 (Annexure P/2) allowing relaxation of 35+5 years benefits only educated unemployed persons of Chhattisgarh and confers no benefit on the petitioner. Petition dismissed, no cost(s).

2025:CGHC:3420

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 257 of 2025

¶6

Abhinav Tripathi S/o D.N. Tripathi Aged About 35 Years Presently Working As Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-Cum- J.M. Garhwa (Jharkhand) Permanent R/o C/o D.N. Tripathi, Near Water Tank Shanti Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary (Law), Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General, Bodari, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Petitioner	: Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No. 2	: Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3	: Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶16

20.01.2025

¶17

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶18

“10.1 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the instant case.

¶19

10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and allow the petitioner to participate in the examination by giving relaxation of age, in the interest of Justice.

¶20

¶21

10.3 Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided to the petitioner.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is posted on the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division-cum-J.M. Garhwa (Jharkhand). He would further submit that an advertisement has been issued by the C.G. Public Service Commission on 23.12.2024 for 57 vacant posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division). He would also submit that according to the advertisement, the minimum age of the candidate as on 01.01.2025 should be 21 years and the maximum age should be 35 years. He would contend that a relaxation of five years of age has been given to members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, and three years of age to the Government Servant working in the State of Chhattisgarh. It is further contended that the petitioner is a Government Servant in the State of Jharkhand; therefore, the C.G. Public Service Commission ought to have extended the benefit of age relaxation to the petitioner.

¶23

On the other hand, Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, and Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsels appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3, respectively, would submit that the petitioner is a Government Servant of the State of Jharkhand and according to the definition provided under Section 2(f) of the C.G. Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred as “Rules, 2006”), “Government” means the Government of Chhattisgarh. They would further submit that the petitioner has completed 35 years of age on 01.01.2025; therefore, he is not eligible to participate in the recruitment process.

¶24

Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that there is a dispute between the petitioner and other respondents.

¶25

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶27

An advertisement has been issued pursuant to the Rules, 2006. Rule 7 is relevant for the disposal of the instant petition which deals with eligibility

¶28

criteria, is reproduced herein-below :-

¶29

“7. Eligibility. –

¶30

(1) No person shall be eligible for appointment to posts in category (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 unless, he or she: -

¶31

(a) is a citizen of India,

¶32

(b) has completed the age of 21 years and has not completed the age of 35 years on the first day of January of the next following year in which applications for appointment are invited:

¶33

Provided that upper age limit shall be relaxable upto a maximum limit of 5 years for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Classes :

¶34

Provided further that the upper age limit shall be relaxable upto a maximum limit of 10 years in case of women candidates belonging to each category namely Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Classes and General:

¶35

Provided further that the upper age limit for Government servant whether permanent or temporary, shall be relaxable upto further 3 years in addition to the relaxations available as above.

¶36

1 Provided further that where a candidate who was eligible in age to apply for appointment in any calendar year in which vacancies were notified as per Rule 5-A and if for some reason recruitment proceeding could not be initiated, such candidate shall be eligible in age to appear in the following recruitment proceedings.

¶37

¶38

(d) has good character and is of sound health and mind and is free from any disability which renders him unfit for such appointment.”

¶39

Admittedly, the petitioner is a Civil Judge, Junior Division in the State of Jharkhand; therefore, he would not come within the definition of Government Servant of the State of Chhattisgarh. Further, he has already

¶40

¶41

completed more than 35 years of age on 01.01.2025; therefore, as per Rule 7 of the Rules, 2006 as well as one of the conditions of the advertisement, he is not eligible to participate in the recruitment process.

¶42

A circular has been annexed (Annexure P/2) dated 18.01.2024, which prescribes relaxation of 35+5 years to educated unemployed persons of the State of Chhattisgarh, and as the petitioner is a Government Servant in the State of Jharkhand, thus, he could not fall within the definition of educated unemployed person; therefore, the petitioner would not get any benefit from that circular.

¶43

Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s). d

¶44

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶45

$iddhant

Abhinav Tripathi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhinav Tripathi 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

Triloki Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Swati Vandana Sisodiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kishor Kumar Verma Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited And Ors.

Smt. Kalindi Yadav Vs Sub Divisional Officer (R) Arang

Rakesh Kumar Sevta Vs Jitendra Kumar @ Anil Yadav

Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh