News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 72 | 2026:CGHC:4663
January 28, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed two writ petitions challenging the removal of Transport Sub Inspectors (Technical) who failed to meet the prescribed minimum height requirement under recruitment rules, holding that appointments made contrary to statutory eligibility criteria cannot be protected.
Justice Parth Prateem Sahu delivered the judgment in petitions filed by Dev Ashish Pradhan and Aishwary Netam, who were appointed as Transport Sub Inspectors (Technical) following a recruitment process conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission. Their appointments, made in September 2022, were later questioned after it emerged that both candidates were below the minimum height of 165 cm required for male candidates under the Chhattisgarh Transport Department Subordinate Class-III (Executive) Service Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2008.
The issue came to light during the hearing of an earlier petition filed by an unsuccessful candidate, prompting the High Court to call for recruitment records. Upon scrutiny, the Court found that the petitioners did not satisfy the physical eligibility norms. Acting on these findings, the State authorities reviewed the matter and removed the petitioners from service in June 2024, granting them one month’s salary in lieu of notice.
Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that the recruitment advertisement issued in April 2022 was ambiguous, particularly because it provided height relaxation for Scheduled Tribe candidates for the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer but did not clearly address relaxation for the post of Transport Sub Inspector (Technical). They also sought relaxation under a 2001 circular of the General Administration Department, which allows relaxation of physical standards for Scheduled Tribe candidates in limited circumstances.
The State and the Public Service Commission countered that the advertisement clearly set out separate eligibility criteria for each post and strictly followed the 2008 Rules. They maintained that no provision exists under the rules or the advertisement to relax the minimum height requirement for Transport Sub Inspectors (Technical), and that the 2001 circular could not be invoked after appointment, especially when eligible candidates were available.
Agreeing with the respondents, the High Court held that the recruitment rules and the advertisement unequivocally mandated a minimum height of 165 cm for male candidates for the post in question, without any relaxation for any category. The Court observed that relaxation powers cannot be exercised unless expressly provided for in the rules or advertisement and duly publicised to ensure equal opportunity for all candidates.
Relying on multiple Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that appointments made in violation of statutory eligibility conditions are void from inception and cannot be sustained merely because the appointees have served for some time. It also noted that the purpose of the 2001 circular was to prevent backlog vacancies where no eligible Scheduled Tribe candidates are available, a situation that did not arise in the present case.
While dismissing both petitions, the Court clarified that the impugned orders should not be treated as stigmatic terminations. It expressly directed that the removal of the petitioners would not stand in the way of their future employment, as the disqualification arose from ineligibility under the rules rather than any misconduct.
Case Reference : WPS No. 3586 of 2024 (Dev Ashish Pradhan S/o Subhash Singh Pradhan, Durg v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) and WPS No. 3602 of 2024 (Aishwary Netam S/o Shivjee Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.); counsel for the petitioners: Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate; for respondents No.1–4/State: Ms. Anuja Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate; for respondent No.5/PSC: Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate; and for the intervener: Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate.
