Facts
The petitioner was appointed as an Attendant on compassionate grounds on 22.04.2016 and regularized on 20.09.2021
Source reference: p. 2Seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer—for which 10% of posts are reserved for Attendants—the petitioner applied for admission to the Diploma in Animal Husbandry course
Source reference: p. 2-3He sought permission on 20.04.2026 to appear for the entrance exam scheduled for 28.06.2026
Source reference: p. 3However, Respondent No. 3 issued an impugned letter dated 22.05.2026 refusing permission, citing a Government Circular dated 09.02.2023 that stayed the selection of Class-IV employees for said course
Source reference: p. 3The petitioner challenged this refusal via the present writ petition
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the respondent authority’s refusal to grant permission to the petitioner to appear in the Diploma entrance examination was legally sustainable in light of existing Government Circulars
Source reference: p. 3 / para. 32. Whether a writ petition challenging a consequential order is maintainable without challenging the primary Circular/policy upon which the order is based
Source reference: p. 4 / para. 7Law Applied
The court considered the Chhattisgarh Veterinary Class-III (Executive and Non-Ministerial) Service Recruitment Rules, 2009, which govern the 10% promotion quota and eligibility criteria for Class-IV employees
Source reference: p. 2It primarily applied the State Government’s Livestock Development Department Circular dated 09.02.2023, which imposed a complete prohibition and kept in abeyance the selection of in-service Class-IV employees (Vaccinators, Dressers, and Attendants) for admission to the Veterinary Polytechnic Diploma Course until further orders
Source reference: p. 3-4Reasoning
The court noted that while the petitioner met the basic eligibility criteria under the 2009 Recruitment Rules, his request was blocked by the Circular dated 09.02.2023
Source reference: p. 3The respondent State argued that the refusal was a direct consequence of this mandatory administrative stay on departmental candidate selections
Source reference: p. 3The court observed that the petitioner failed to challenge the validity of the 09.02.2023 Circular itself, focusing only on the consequential letter of refusal dated 22.05.2026
Source reference: p. 4Furthermore, the court dismissed the petitioner's verbal plea regarding the non-availability of the Circular via RTI, noting that the writ petition contained no formal averments or evidence to support such claims
Source reference: p. 3Consequently, the court found that the impugned order was a valid exercise of authority pursuant to a standing Government policy
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the impugned order dated 22.05.2026 suffered from no illegality as it was issued in compliance with the prohibitory Circular dated 09.02.2023
Since the petitioner did not challenge the underlying Circular, the petition was found to be without merit
Source reference: p. 4The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the writ petition
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
JANMEJAY YADAVvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in