Mandatory eligibility criteria cannot be relaxed post-selection without express enabling provisions.

The appellant, a Scheduled Tribe candidate, applied for the post of Transport Sub Inspector (Technical) following a 2022 advertisement by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission

He was appointed on September 8, 2022; however, his appointment was challenged by an intervenor in a separate writ petition

Upon scrutiny, it was discovered that the appellant did not meet the mandatory minimum height requirement of 165 cm

The appellant sought relaxation in height under a General Administration Department (GAD) Circular dated July 31, 2001, but the Department rejected the request on September 25, 2023, stating that such relaxation cannot be granted post-appointment and is only applicable when posts remain unfilled

The appellant challenged this rejection in WP(S) No. 3602 of 2024, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on January 28, 2026

The appellant then filed the present writ appeal

1. Whether the appellant was entitled to height relaxation as a matter of right under the State Government Circular dated July 31, 2001, or Rule 22 of the Chhattisgarh Transport Department Service Rules, 2008

2. Whether the eligibility criteria regarding physical standards could be relaxed after the selection process was completed and the appellant was appointed

The court primarily applied the Chhattisgarh Transport Department Service Rules, 2008, which prescribe a mandatory minimum height of 165 cm for male candidates

It also considered Rule 22 of the 2008 Rules regarding the government’s power to interpret and relax rules

Furthermore, the court relied on the State Government Circular dated July 31, 2001, which confers discretionary power upon the competent authority to grant relaxation only in specific circumstances, such as a lack of eligible candidates

Finally, the court applied the settled legal principle established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that eligibility criteria must be strictly adhered to and cannot be relaxed in the absence of specific enabling provisions within the advertisement or rules

The Court observed that the appellant admittedly failed to meet the 165 cm height requirement mandated by both the statutory rules and the recruitment advertisement

It reasoned that since neither the Rules nor the advertisement contained an express provision for height relaxation for the post in question, the appellant could not claim such relaxation as a right

Regarding the 2001 Circular, the Court noted it grants "discretionary power" to the authority, which was appropriately declined because the selection process was already complete and other eligible candidates were available

The Court emphasized that relaxation of essential eligibility criteria after the selection process has concluded is impermissible, particularly when it would prejudice other eligible applicants

Consequently, the Court found that the appellant’s failure to meet the physical standards rendered him ineligible, and his appointment was rightly invalidated

The Court affirmed that mandatory eligibility criteria cannot be relaxed post-selection in the absence of enabling provisions

Accordingly, the writ appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merit