Mandatory eligibility criteria cannot be relaxed in the absence of specific enabling provisions in the service rules.

The appellant challenged the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3586 of 2024, which dismissed his writ petition

The appellant had applied for a position under the Transport Department but was found ineligible for failing to meet the mandatory minimum height requirement of 165 cm

Both the appellant and the respondents noted that the facts and legal issues involved were identical to those in Aishwary Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh Others (WA No. 263 of 2026), which had been dismissed by the same Division Bench on 02.04.2026

The appellant sought a reversal of the Single Judge's finding that he was not entitled to height relaxation

Whether the appellant was entitled to a relaxation of the mandatory height criteria in the absence of specific enabling provisions in the recruitment rules or the advertisement

Whether the court should interfere with the Single Judge's order given the dismissal of an identical challenge in WA No. 263 of 2026

The court primarily applied the Chhattisgarh Transport Department Service Rules, 2008, which prescribe the mandatory minimum height requirement for candidates

It further relied on the principles governing administrative discretion under the Circular dated 31.07.2001, noting that such powers are discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right

Additionally, the court adhered to the settled principle of law established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that eligibility criteria must be strictly followed and cannot be relaxed after the completion of the selection process unless enabling provisions specifically allow for it

The Court observed that the appellant admittedly failed to meet the 165 cm height requirement mandated by the 2008 Rules and the recruitment advertisement

It reasoned that since neither the Rules nor the advertisement contained provisions for height relaxation, the appellant could not demand such a benefit as a right

The Court highlighted that the authorities had validly exercised their discretion under the 2001 Circular by declining relaxation, particularly when eligible candidates were already available

Given that the Division Bench had already adjudicated these exact issues in Aishwary Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh (WA No. 263 of 2026) and found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the Single Judge's refusal to grant relief, the Court determined that it must maintain consistency with its prior ruling

The Court affirmed that in the absence of enabling provisions, the mandatory eligibility criteria regarding height could not be relaxed

Consequently, the order of the learned Single Judge was upheld, and the writ appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs