Chattisgarh High Court
Rahul Singh Rathore vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 April, 2026
1
SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR
ALI
Digitally signed 2026:CGHC:18228
by SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR ALI
Date: AFR
2026.04.21
19:59:40 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order reserved on 24.03.2026
Order delivered on 21/04/2026
WPS No. 7384 of 2024
1. Khumendra Kumar Sahu S/o Bhishan Lal Sahu Aged About
34 Years R/o Village And Post- Kareli Chhoti, Block Magarlod,
District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Pin 493662
--- Petitioner
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh Forest Department, Jai
Road, Aranya Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Under Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest And Head Of Forest
Forces Chhattisgarh Forest Department, Jai Road, Aranya
Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Chief Conservator Of Forest, Raipur Circle, Zero Point, Near
Vidhan Sabha, Baloda Bazar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, North Block,
Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
WPS No. 5373 of 2024
1. Jasvant Singh Thakur S/o Shri Parashu Ram Thakur Aged
About 40 Years R/oh No. 0166 Ward No. 10 Gram
2
Balodgahan Post Off – Balodgahan Teh- Gurur District
Balodgahan (C.G.)
2. Abhishek Anthony S/o T. Anthony Aged About 33 Years R/o C-
1/65, Sector – 7, New Rajendra Nagar Raipur (C.G.)
3. Pankaj Rawte S/o Late Sukhitram Rawte Aged About 29
Years R/o Village And Post – Vishrampuri District Kondagaon
4. Sumit Kumar Khewar S/o Yashwant Kumar Khewar Aged
About 33 Years R/o H. No. B/7 Kalyan Sadan Behind Cross
Road Apartment Amlidih Mg Nagar Raipur (C.G.)
5. Pavan Markam S/o Dashru Ram Markam Aged About 35
Years R/o Pre Matric Boys Hostal Baniyagaon Near Higher
Secondary School Vill. And Post Baniyagaon Block –
Kongdagaon District Kondagaon (C.G.)
6. Upendra Singh S/o Khamhan Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o
Vill. And Post – Sukulkari Teh- Masturi District Bilapur (C.G.)
7. Vinod Kumar Yadav S/o Tileshwar Ram Yadav Aged About 33
Years R/o Behratoli Shankar Nagar P.S. Kunkuri District
Jashpur (C.G.)
8. Bhupesh Markam S/o Late Tularam Markam Aged About 28
Years R/oh No. 238/3 Schoolpara Haram Geedam District –
Dantewada (C.G.)
9. Shubham Jaiswal S/o Ashok Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 29
Years R/o S – 5 Asma Citiy Home Phase 1 Sakri Bilaspur
(C.G.)
10. Bhupendra Jamde S/o G.S. Jamde Aged About 35 Years R/o
Behind Nirmala Dalli Rajhra District Balod (C.G.)
—Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additonal Chief Secretary
Department Of Forest And Climate Change Mahanadi
Bhawan Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.)
3
2. Under Secretary Department Of Forest And Climate Change
Mahanadi Bhawan Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.)
3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest And Head Of Forest
Forces Chhattisgarh Forest Department, Jai Road Aranya
Bhawan Raipur (C.G)
4. Chief Conservator Of Forest Raipur Circle Zero Point Near
Vidhansabha Baloda Bazar Road Raipur (C.G.)
5. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission North Block Sector –
19 Nava Raipur Atal Nagar (C.G.)
6. Yogesh Baghel S/o Shri D.N Baghel Aged About 27 Years R/o
Village Badlawand P.O. Pahurbel Teh. Karpawand District
Bastar (C.G.)
— Respondents
WPS No. 6989 of 2024
1. Rahul Singh Rathore S/o Shri Taman Singh Rathore Aged
About 29 Years R/o H.No. 1085 Ward No. 16 Prrana Kashi
Nagar, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
2. Sanjeev Taram S/o Shri N.R. Taram Aged About 27 Years R/o
Ashirwad Colony, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Ombiyas Netam S/o Shri Sahdev Netam, Aged About 31
Years R/o Gad Colony Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.
—Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh R/o Gad Colony Bijapur, District
Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Under Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest And Head Of Forest
Forces, Aranya Bhawan, Sector – 19, Atal Nagar, Nava
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4
4. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through The
Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
— Respondent(s)
WPS No. 7394 of 2024
1. Vaibhav Rahul S/o Nand Kumar Rahul Aged About 39 Years
R/o Tulsipar, Sangam Chowk, Ward No. 17, In Front Of
Menno Night Church, Rajnandgaon, C.G.
2. Vijay Kumar S/o Jogiram Aged About 37 Years R/o House No.
209, Ward No. – 1, Ambedkar Ward Tribel Colony,
Dantewada, C.G.
3. Sushant Kumar Pradhan S/o Mohan Lal Pradhan Aged About
35 Years R/o Village And Post- Sankara (Jonk) Tehsil-
Pithora, Mahasamund, C.G.
4. Praveen Kumar Netam S/o Hem Prasad Netam Aged About
29 Years R/o Q.- 16/a, Street – E M R, Sector – 4, Bhilai- Durg,
C.G.
5. Mohibullah Siddique S/o Wazir Ahmed Aged About 41 Years
R/o Plot No. 26, Street No. – 7, Panchsheel Sector- B, Borsi,
Durg, C.G.
6. Aditya Mehar S/o Bhupendra Mehar Aged About 26 Years R/o
House No. 38, Guru Vihar, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur, C.G.
7. Bhavesh Shori S/o Shishupal Shori Aged About 36 Years R/o
C- 2/2, Civil Lines, Kanker, C.G.
—Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh North Block, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur,
Atal Nagar, C.G.
2. Under Secretary Department Of Forest And Climate Change
Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, C.G.
5
3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest And Head Of Forest
Forces Chhattisgarh Forest Department, Jai Road, Aranya
Bhawan, Raipur, C.G.
4. Chief Conservator Of Forest Raipur Circle, Zero Point, Near
Vidhansabha, Baloda Bazar Road, Raipur, C.G
5. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission North Block, Sector-
19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, C.G.
— Respondents
WPS No. 7896 of 2024
1. Siddharth Bharti S/o Shri Trilokinath Bharti Aged About 32
Years R/o Plot No. 32, 1st Floor Street No. 4, Banshi Vihar
Borsi Durg District – Durg Chhattisgarh
2. Takeshwar S/o Shri Indal Latiya Aged About 30 Years R/o
House No. 23, Ward No. 15, Marartola Rajnandgaon (CG)
—Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Raipur Circle Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Secretary Department Of General Administration Mantralaya
Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District – Raipur
(C.G.)
3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Aranya Bhawan Sector
19, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District – Raipur Chhattisgarh
4. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Wildlife) Aranya
Bhawan Sector 19, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District – Raipur
Chhattisgarh
5. Chief Conservator Of Forest Raipur Circle Raipur (CG)
6. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission through its
Secretary North Block Sector 19, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur
(CG)
— Respondents
6
WPS No. 1698 of 2025
1. Rakesh Kumar Patel S/o Shri Yadow Ram Patel Aged About
32 Years R/o Village- Dhimani, Post Bandora, Tehsil Adbhar,
District Sakti, Chhattisgarh.
—Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2. Under Secretary Department Of Forest And Climate Change,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Principle Chief Conservator Of Forest And Head Of Forest
Forces Aranya Bhawan, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The
Secretary, North Block, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
— Respondents
WPS No. 3460 of 2025
1. Madhusudan Mourya S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra Morya Aged
About 31 Years R/o Pujari Para, Village Lohandiguda, District
Bastar, Chhattisgarh
2. Yogesh Baghel S/o Shri D. N. Baghel Aged About 28 Years
R/o Village Badlawand, Post Office Pahurbel, Tehsil
Karpawand, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh
3. Zaahid Khan S/o Shri Z.H. Khan Aged About 36 Years R/o A-
19, Surya Apartment, Katora Talab, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
7
4. Pramod Kumar Maravi S/o Shri Sumrit Lal Maravi Aged About
31 Years R/o Village Manjurpahari, Ward No. 2, Post Office
Beltara, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
5. Nitesh Kumar Deshmukh S/o Shri Bhojendra Kumar
Deshmukh Aged About 37 Years Ward No. 51, Sundar Nagar,
Borasi Dakshin, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
6. Amit Kumar Kashyap S/o Shri S. R. Kashyap Aged About 33
Years R/o Village Karanji, Post Karanji, Tehsil Tokapal, District
Bastar, Chhattisgarh
7. Digvijay Singh S/o Shri Sushil Kumar Singh Aged About 35
Years R/o Patel Medicos, Bhuji Bhawan Chowk, Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
8. Vidya Bhushan Kumar S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Kamar Aged
About 27 Years R/o Sagarapara, Venkat Nagar Road, Post
Pendra Road, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
9. Ajay Sahu S/o Shri Ganga Ram Sahu Aged About 33 Years
R/o 7, Patel Para, Ward No. 1, Dahi Angara, Dahi, Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh
10. Raghawendra Singh S/o Shri Narendra Pal Singh Aged About
33 Years R/o Village Majhgawan, Tehsil Belgahana, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
11.Vinay Tigga S/o Shri Kashi Nath Tigga Aged About 35 Years
R/o House No. 119/4, Chidrapara 4, Pathalgaon, District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
12. Pradeep Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Murari Ram Yadav
Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Dipatoli, Tehsil Kunkuri,
District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
—Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mantralaya,
8
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur
(CG)
2. Secretary Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur
(CG)
3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Aranya Bhawan, Sector
19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Wildlife) Aranya
Bhawan, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
5. Chief Conservator Of Forest Raipur Circle, Raipur (CG)
6. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its
Secretary, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur
(CG)
— Respondents
For Petitioners in WPS : Mr. Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate
No.7384/2024
For Petitioners in WPS No. : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Ms. Kanchan Kalwani and
5373/2024 & 7394 /2024
Anmol Gupta, Advocates.
For Petitioners in WPS : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui with Ms. Apurva
Pandey, Advocate
No.6989/2024, 1698/2025
For Petitioners in WPS : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate
No.7896/2025 & 3460/2025
and respondent No.6 in WPS
5373/2024.
For Respondent State : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhya, Additional
Advocate General
For Respondent PSC : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Dr. Sudeep
Agrawal with Ms. Yogisha Tiwari,
Advocates
For Intervenor : Mr. CJK Rao, Advocate
9
S.B.: Hon’ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
CAV Order
1. As common issue is involved in this bunch of writ petitions for
determination, therefore, they were heard together and are
being disposed of by this common order.
2. This bunch of writ petitions are filed by two sets of candidates.
One set comprised of those candidates who became
unsuccessful in physical standard test (walk test) and have
assailed the action of respondents in cancelling the decision
granting second chance to them to appear in walk test. Other
set comprised of wait list candidates, they have sought for a
direction to respondent authorities to consider them for their
appointment.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent Chhattisgarh
Public Service Commission (for short ‘PSC’) issued an
advertisement dated 10.06.2020 under the Chhattisgarh
Forest (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 2015
(henceforth ‘the Rules of 2015’) for filling up 157 posts of
Forest Ranger and 21 posts of Assistant Conservator of
Forest. Petitioners, in pursuance to said advertisement,
applied and appeared in written examination and interview. A
final select list, consisting of main list and waiting list, of
selected candidates was prepared by PSC on the basis of
consolidated marks secured by the candidates in written
exam and interview, and uploaded it, on its web portal on
10
3.6.2023. After publication of final selection list, the selected
candidates were called for documents verification and
physical test which includes physical calibre test (walk test). A
committee was constituted by the State Government for
conducting document verification and physical test. In the
physical caliber walk test conducted on 12.09.2023. Some of
the petitioners herein could not clear qualifying walk test of 26
kilometer in physical test as they failed to complete 26 kms
walk within the prescribed time of 04 hours. Unsuccessful
candidates and some who did not appear in physical
parameters test, preferred representation seeking another
opportunity to face physical walk test on the grounds
mentioned therein. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur
forwarded representation of petitioners and others to the
respondent No.1 with recommendation to grant another
opportunity for physical walk test. The State Government
vide order dated 18.1.2024 granted another opportunity to
selected candidates to appear for physical test. This order is
put to challenge by candidates, who became unsuccessful in
physical parameters and placed in waiting list, by filing
separate writ petitions. During pendency of those writ
petitions, the State Government vide order dated 20.6.2024
has withdrawn the permission of second chance to appear in
physical walk test. Pursuant thereto, candidature of
11
petitioners, who could not complete physical caliber test walk
test within prescribed time of 04 hours, is cancelled.
4. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Mateen Siddiqui,
learned counsel for petitioners in WPS No.6989/2024,
1698/2025, 5373/2024 & 7394 /2024 respectively, submit that
walk test was conducted on a public road under extreme heat
condition during a working day when vehicular traffic was at
its peak, there was lack of sufficient water and drink; there
was long queue at drinking water stalls; intimation of test was
received just two days before. All these factors materially
affected efficiency of candidates as a result walk of 26 kms
could not be completed within the prescribed time. Mentioning
aforementioned reasons, petitioners submitted representation
before the Chief Conservator of Forest on 13.9.2023, who
found substance in the case of petitioners and accordingly,
vide letter dated 31.10.2023 recommended for grant of
another opportunity for physical caliber walk test. Said
recommendation was also approved by the Hon’ble Minister
In-charge. Considering the admitted adverse conditions,
which impaired efficiency of candidates during walk test,
coupled with approval of the Minister In-charge, respondent
No.2, exercising power of relaxation conferred under Rule 21
of the Rules of 2015, granted permission to give another
opportunity for physical caliber walk test vide order dated
12
18.1.2024. In the reply submitted in writ petition filed by
petitioners in WPS No.7896/2025 and 3460/2025, challenging
decision of giving another opportunity to appear in physical
test, it is categoric stand of respondent State authorities that
the State Government is empowered to grant second
opportunity for clearing physical test, relevant rules also does
not bar a candidate from clearing the physical caliber test on
second attempt. However, all of a sudden, the respondent
State authorities took a somersault and passed the impugned
order cancelling its decision to grant another opportunity for
appearing in physical test.
5. It is submitted that the authority concerned, taking into
consideration the hardship/difficulties faced by candidates
during walk test affecting their performance, consciously
granted second chance, however, after transfer of said
authority, the successor incumbent, who had no authority
under the Rules of 2015 to review or recall such permission,
overturned such a reasoned decision in a mechanical and
arbitrary manner. Once a decision to grant second opportunity
to appear in physical test is taken, the respondent authorities
are estopped from withdrawing the same abruptly without any
justifiable reason. It is further submitted that it is not the case,
that respondent Department for the first time granted another
opportunity to the candidates for physical test. It is submitted
13
that not only in earlier selection process the candidates who
were absent in physical test etc., were granted another
opportunity, but in present selection process, one candidate
namely Ms. Varsha Kashyap was absent in physical
parameter (walk test) conducted on 12.09.2023, however, she
was granted opprtunity to appear in walk test, which was
arranged on 10.2.2024, and thereafter she has been
appointed on the post of Forest Ranger. Thus, the action of
respondent No.2 in denying another opportunity to petitioners
for walk test on the ground that there is no such provision
under the Rules of 2015, is discriminatory in nature.
6. It is next contended that there is no such provision in the
Rules of 2015 that, 26 kilometer’s walk for men and 16 km
walk for women to be completed in 04 hours is an essential
qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant
Conservator of Forest and Forest Ranger or that the
candidates who have not completed walk test within
prescribed time would be declared ineligible or disqualified.
Selection/ appointment on the post of Assistant Conservator
of Forest and Forest Ranger is mainly based on marks
secured by a candidate in written examination and interview,
there is no mark for passing of physical parameters and walk
test. The walk test is only a mode to assess physical
efficiency and not determinative of ranking or merit list.
14
Allowing a second chance does not prejudice anyone rather it
ensures that eligible candidates are not disqualified unfairly.
In other words, denial of second chance to appear in walk test
would result in a situation where less meritorious candidates
will be selected while more meritorious candidates like
petitioners, who have secured more marks than those
candidates in written examination and interview, will be
disqualified on the ground that they did not complete walk
test, which does not determine inter se merit or ranking, in
prescribed period of time. Hence, the impugned order
withdrawing second opportunity to appear in walk test, which
is granted by respondent authorities taking into account
mismanagement in conduct of physical test, without any
justifiable reason, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, and liable to be set aside with a direction
that petitioners are entitled to get another opportunity to
appear in physical caliber walk test.
In support of their submissions, reliance is placed on
decisions in order of Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)
dated 1.2.2013 in Service Single No.5254/2011 and other
connected matters; order of Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur)
dated 14.11.2018 in Civil Appeal (Writ) No.1732/2016
(Thawara Ram vs State of Rajasthan & ors); judgment dated
22.12.2023 of Gujarat High Court in bunch of appeals lead
15
case being R/LPA No.1145/2022; judgment dated 24.8.2022
of Gujarat High Court in bunch of writ petitions, lead case
being R/Special Civil Application No.4373/2022.Disha
Panchal and others vs Union of India, reported in
AIR 2018 SC 2824.
7. Mr. Dhaniram Patel, learned counsel for petitioners in WP
No.7384 /2024 adopted the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for petitioners in WPS No. 5373/2024 & 7394 /2024,
6989/2024, 1698/2025. In addition, he submits that there is
no mention in the impugned letter dated 20.6.2024, Annexure
P-1, that permission granted to reconduct walk test of
ineligible candidates is withdrawn, rather the authority
concerned has only expressed disagreement with the
proposal to grant second chance to qualify walk test. Mere
disagreement or clarification by the General Administration
Department could not be valid basis to override the original
decision. He submitted that there is no provision in the Rules
of 2015 that a candidate failed to clear the physical test
including walk test, will be declared disqualified. Further,
when the candidates who completed 26 kms walk in 4 hrs is
not entitled for any benefit, then disqualification of candidates
for completing the walk test in more than prescribed time is
arbitrary. He submitted that the purpose behind mentioning in
call letter dated 31.8.2023 that ‘second chance will not be
16
granted’, is to ensure that candidates take the walk test
seriously. He also contended that principle governing change
of rules in midstream of game has application in cases where
change is with respect to selection process but not the
qualification or eligibility and physical calibre test is the part
and parcel of selection process. He further submitted that
petitioner is not challenging the entire recruitment process but
only seeking second chance to undergo physical walk test to
be conducted in a fair and safe environment.
8. Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
petitioners in No.7896/2025 & 3460/2025 as for respondent
No.6 in WPS 5373/2024 i.e. candidates successful in physical
caliber walk test and physical parameters and placed in wait
list, would vehemently oppose the submission made by
learned counsel for petitioners in WPS No.6989/2024,
1698/2025, 5373/2024 & 7394 /2024 respectively, that
physical caliber test (walk test) was not an essential
qualification as no mark is to be awarded in walk test. He
would submit that in the advertisement issued by the
respondent authorities calling upon the applications from
interested candidates for appointment/ selection on the post
of Assistant Conservator of Forest and Forest Ranger. In the
advertisement, along with minimum qualification required for
becoming eligible to participate in recruitment process, it also
17
provides for minimum physical standards. Along with
requirement of body structure under physical standards like
height, chest, expansion of chest after inhaling, it also
mentions at Entry No.5 of the table about physical caliber
walk test of 26 kms for male candidates and 16 kms for
female candidates, to be completed in four hours. Physical
standards as are mentioned in the advertisement are
extracted from the Rules of 2015. Rule 11 of the Rules of
2015 deals with direct recruitment by Selection/ Competitive
Examination/ Interview. Referring to sub-rule (11) of Rule 11,
he submits that physical parameters are specifically
prescribed under the Rules for becoming eligible a candidate
for his/her appointment. He also stressed upon the word
‘minimum’ under the head of physical parameters and
submits that minimum requirement to complete physical
caliber test of walk in 4 hrs, means that though no mark is to
be awarded for walk test but to qualify and become eligible for
appointment based on marks secured in written test and
interview to determine the merit, a candidate has to qualify
the walk test. Unless a candidate attains the physical
parameter, he/she will not be eligible and therefore,
submission of learned counsel for petitioners that completion
of physical caliber test of walk within period prescribed is not
essential qualification is contrary to the provision under Rule
18
11 (11) of the Rules of 2015 and conditions of the
advertisement based upon which petitioners in WPS
No.6989/2024, 1698/2025, 5373/2024 & 7394 /2024 have
submitted their application.
9. Mr. Das next contended that submission of learned counsel
for petitioners in WPS No.6989/2024, 1698/2025, 5373/2024
& 7394 /2024 that walk test has not been conducted at
appropriate place, time on which walk test was conducted and
place was not suitable due to high temperature and traffic on
the road, to support the proposal forwarded by the Principal
Chief Conservator of Forest for granting second chance for
physical caliber test of walk is also not correct. He contended
that walk test of almost all the candidates who have been
issued letter for appearing in documents verification and for
physical parameters and physical caliber test of walk have
been called for participating in physical caliber test conducted
by respondents on one day and at one place fixed i.e. on
12.9.2023 at 7:00 a.m. As many as 211 candidates
participated in physical caliber test conducted by respondents
on the date and time fixed, out of which, 24 candidates who
applied and participated for the post of Forest Ranger, could
not complete the physical caliber test (walk) within prescribed
time. All 211 candidates have participated in physical caliber
test under the same environmental condition, circumstances
19
and none of them, except petitioners in WPS No.6989/2024,
1698/2025, 5373/2024 & 7394 /2024, has complained about
shortcoming, if any, or about weather condition and traffic.
Once the petitioners in respective petitions participated in
walk test without any protest or objection and that too, out of
their own freewill, and failed therein, then they could not turn
around and ask for second chance.
10. He next contended that in the Rules of 2015 as also the
advertisement issued by respondent PSC, it is nowhere
mentioned that the candidates, who did not qualify the walk
test within prescribed period of time in first attempt, will be
granted second chance/another opportunity for clearing walk
test. Even in the call-letters issued to the candidates, who
participated in walk test, clearly mentions that no second
opportunity will be granted. In the year 2017 also, recruitment
process for the same post was conducted and in which the
candidates were given only one opportunity to appear in the
physical test and the candidates who failed in the physical
test were left for appointment and the vacancies were filled up
by the candidates of the wait list. Hence, where the Rules
prescribe a thing to be done in a particular manner following a
particular procedure, it has to be done in the same manner
following the provisions of law, without deviating from the
prescribed procedure. When the Rules of 2015 as also
20
advertisement does not provide for second chance to qualify
walk test, the decision taken by respondent authorities to
grant another opportunity is contrary to the recruitment rules.
The requirement of minimum physical test cannot be
dispensed with as it forms integral component of suitability
and efficiency for the post. Terms and conditions stipulated in
the advertisement are binding and must be scrupulously
followed. No relaxation of such conditions is permissible
unless the power to relax is expressly provided either in the
statutory rules or explicitly mentioned in the advertisement
itself. Failure to qualify in the prescribed physical test
disentitle the candidates from claiming from claiming
appointment and no subsequent relaxation or second chance
can be claimed as a matter of right. In support of his
contention, he placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Bedanga Talukdar v Saifudaullah
Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 85 and State of UP vs Pankaj Kumar
Vishnoi, (2013) 11 SCC 178; Sanjay K Dixit v State of UP,
(2019) 17 SCC 373.
11. He next contended that grant of another opportunity to appear
in walk test to unsuccessful candidates in absence of any
provision in the advertisement or the governing rules, would
amount to a clear departure from the stipulated conditions of
the selection process and thereby changing the rule of game
21
after the start of selection process. It is well settled position in
law that once the process of recruitment has began, the State
or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the rules of game qua
method or procedure for selection, in midst of the game or
after the game is played. To buttress this submission, he
placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
cases of Parth Das and others vs State of Tripura and
others, 2025 SCC Online SC 1844 & Tej Prakash vs State
of Rajasthan, (2025) 2 SCC 1.
12. He next contended that no relief can be granted to the
candidate if he approaches the Court after the selection
process is over and select list is expired. In case at hand, list
of selected candidates was issued on 03.06.2023. Validity of
selection, which was extended from time to time, expired on
02.06.2025. Therefore, at this stage, no relief can be granted
by this Court to the candidates who failed to qualify
mandatory walk test because they have no right to claim
appointment after expiry of validity of select list. In support of
this submission, he placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in cases of State of Orissa vs Rajkishore
Nanda, (2010) 6 SCC 777 and Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v.
South East Central Railway, (2019) 12 SCC 798 and also
order of the Coordinate Bench dated 17.9.2021 in WPS
No.2581/2013 (Dilip Kumar Singh vs State of CG & ors).
22
13. He further contended that petitioners in WPS No.6989/2024,
1698/2025, 5373/2024 & 7394 /2024, have based their case
only on the proceedings drawn by the department for giving
one more opportunity and issuance of letter in this regard on
10.8.2023. Said proceeding initiated by the department was
in contravention of the opinion given by the General
Administration Department. Initially, proposal for grant of one
more opportunity to 24 unsuccessful candidates who applied
and participated for the post of Forest Ranger and 03
unsuccessful candidates who applied for the post of Assistant
Conservator of Forest, was not accepted by the General
Administration Department and in the note sheet it is
mentioned that no opinion can be given on the proposal
mentioning that there is no provision under the recruitment
rules to provide second chance to undergo physical caliber
test (walk test) and misinterpreting aforesaid opinion of the
General Administration Department, the Chief Secretary,
Department of Forest and Climate Control, has observed that
it would be appropriate to give second chance. Said decision
when again came to notice of the authorities, considering that
it is contrary to the rules applicable for the recruitment rules
and also in contravention of clauses of advertisement, it was
again sent by the department for opinion of the General
Administration Department whereupon the General
23
Administration Department has given clear opinion
disagreeing with the proposal being contrary to the
recruitment rules. He also pointed out that in the note sheet
of the General Administration Department, it is further
mentioned that action be taken against the official who
proceeded to grant second chance to 27 unsuccessful
candidates.
14. He submits that if the proceeding initiated by the official of the
State Government is found to be in contravention of the
provisions applicable to it, then the State Government can
very well rectify it by recording proceeding and in this case
also, same process was followed and earlier letter written by
department dated 18.1.2024, by which direction was issued to
give second chance to 27 unsuccessful candidates, has been
made ineffective.
15. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of
respondent State in all writ petitions would submit that
recruitment proceedings are governed by recruitment rules
and conditions mentioned in advertisement, which are
uniformly applicable to all candidates. In this case, eligibility
criteria in the advertisement for selection of Assistant
Conservator of Forest and Forest Ranger has been narrated
in detail, according to which, a candidate shall be required to
undergo a walk test of 26 kilometers in case of a male
24
candidate and 16 kilometers in case of a female candidate
within four hours duration. Letter dated 31.08.2023 issued to
the candidates for physical test clearly contemplates that
candidates are required to complete the walk test within an
outer limit of 04 hours and second chance to qualify the walk
test will not be granted. As such, the candidates with full
understanding and knowledge, that only one chance would be
allowed to clear physical test, appeared in the physical test.
Petitioners in WPS Nos.6989/2024, 1698/2025, 5373/2024 &
7394 2024 failed to clear walk of 26 kms walk in 4 hours as a
result they were declared disqualified.
16. He submitted that the forest officials are routinely required to
travel long distance on foot through dense forests, hilly
regions and remote areas where vehicular access is either
limited or non-existent. Walk test is, therefore, is not a mere
formality rather it is a minimum qualifying standard. It is an
essential criteria directly linked to the functional requirements
of the post in forest service. Though no mark was to be
awarded against walk test, but it constitutes a minimum
qualifying benchmark, going to the root of the eligibility, and
therefore, grant of second chance in such a test would defeat
the very purpose of selection process and amounts to
granting an undue advantage upon a few, thereby prejudicing
others who have fulfilled the prescribed standards. Once a
25
candidate stands disqualified as per rules, granting second
chance would also open the floodgates for similar claims by
other disqualified candidates.
17. He further submitted that pursuant to proposal forwarded by
respondent No.2 seeking opinion with respect to grant of
second chance to undergo walk test, the General
Administration Department vide letter dated 17.10.2023 had
clearly opined that in absence of any provision in the
recruitment rules regarding grant of second chance to
undergo physical caliber test (walk test), no opinion can be
given on said proposal. However, respondent No.2 vide letter
dated 20.6.2024 (Annexure P-1) granted permission to
reconduct walk test for 27 disqualified candidates. When the
aforementioned fact was brought to the notice of the General
Administration Department, it again expressed disagreement
with the proposal of second chance being contrary to
recruitment rules and advertisement and also directed for
initiation of disciplinary action against the officer granting
second opportunity for walk test. He submits that the State
Government is not only empowered but under a legal
obligation to rectify the mistake once it is noticed that a
decision is contrary to the relevant rules. Hence, the
withdrawal of permission to reconduct walk test of
unsuccessful candidates cannot be faulted with as it is taken,
26
to bring action of the State Government in conformity with the
governing rules and therefore, warrants no interference.
18. It is submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that
submission of learned counsel for petitioners that one Varsha
Kashyap was granted second chance to appear in walk test,
is not correct. It is submitted that Varsha Kashyap was
medically unfit on the date when physical test was originally
conducted i.e. 12.09.2023, and considering the medical
documents submitted by her in support of her claim, she was
permitted to undergo physical test. He submits that
expression ‘second chance’ presupposes the existence of a
prior attempt that has culminated in failure or non-
qualification. Said Varsha Kashyap, owing to her illness,
never participated in the physical test held on 12.09.2023,
therefore, labelling the opportunity granted to her as a
‘second chance’ is factually incorrect.
19. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Public
Service Commission would submit that respondent Public
Service Commission is a recruiting agency and its role is
confined to conduct the selection process for appointment to
the services of the State Government and selecting
candidates on the basis of merit. According to the procedure
prescribed, written test and interview has been conducted by
respondent PSC, work of verification of documents, physical
27
calibre test (walk) as also physical standards of the
candidates is to be conducted by respondent department.
After completion of written examination and interview,
respondent PSC prepared a category-wise list arranged in
order of merit of candidates, who have qualified and declared
by the Commission to be suitable for the appointment. Said
list was forwarded to the Government for appointment to the
posts as advertised. Based on select list along with wait list,
forwarded by respondent PSC, physical walk test as also
physical parameter was conducted and result thereof has
been declared by the respondent Department. Even no relief
of whatsoever nature is claimed against the respondent
Public Service Commission.
20. He further submitted that publication of merit list, which is
relied upon by petitioners in WPS No. 5373/2024 & 7394 /
2024, 6989/2024, 1698/2025, does not entitle any candidate
for appointment unless he/she meets out the physical test as
provided in the rules and advertisement. After physical
standard test undergone by candidates, whose name are
finding in select list and wait list, vide order dated 15.10.2024,
candidature of total 42 candidates was cancelled (18
candidates were absent in physical test and 24 candidates
were declared disqualified). Further, appointment of 04
Forest Rangers, who failed to give joining within prescribed
28
period of time, was also cancelled vide order dated
15.10.2024. Order of cancellation of candidature has not been
put to challenge in all writ petitions. He further pointed out that
the names of wait list candidates in category-wise has been
forwarded to the State Government/employer vide letter dated
29.10.2024.
21. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the
documents available in record of writ petition.
22. In the light of submissions of learned counsel for respective
parties, the only question that falls for consideration in these
batch of writ petitions is whether the candidates, who did not
qualify the walk test within the prescribed period of time, are
entitled to have a second chance to qualify walk test?
23. In order to better appreciate the controversy, it would be
appropriate to refer to the provisions governing the
recruitment, which are relevant for adjudication of this case.
24. The State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred
under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, has framed the
Rules of 2015 governing the recruitment and conditions of
service of various posts under the Chhattisgarh Forest
(Gazetted) Services. Rule 6 of Rules of 2015 provides for
method of recruitment i.e. (a) by direct recruitment through
competitive examination or selection (b) by promotion of
members of the service (c) by transfer/deputation of persons
29
who hold in a substantive capacity. Rule 8 provides for
conditions of eligibility for direct recruitment i.e. age,
educational qualifications and fees. As per sub-rule (2) of
Rule 8, a candidate must possess educational qualifications
as prescribed for the service as shown in Schedule III. As per
qualification prescribed in Schedule III for the post of
Assistant Conservator of Forest and Forest Ranger, a
candidate should have graduate degree or equivalent from a
recognized degree with at least one of the subjects mentioned
therein. Rule 9 of the Rules of 2015 prescribes
‘disqualification’ and according to sub-rule (3), any candidate
shall be appointed to any service unless he is declared
mentally or physically fit. Rule 11 deals with procedure of
selection/appointment through direct recruitment. Sub-rule
(11) of Rule 11 envisages that a candidate must satisfy
themselves that he/she fulfills prescribed minimum physical
requirements, if any, prescribed for the service. Minimum
physical parameters are also provided under this rule. Sub-
rule (11) of Rule 11 reads as follows:-
“11. The Commission shall not provide counselling to
candidates regarding their eligibility for any specific
service. The candidates must verify for themselves
whether they meet the prescribed eligibility
conditions, and if standard physical parameters are
prescribed for certain services then candidates must
satisfy themselves that they fulfill the prescribed
30minimum physical requirement prescribed for the
service before applying for the post.
Physical Parameters (Minimum)
Male Female
(I) Height (unreserved, Scheduled caste 163 cms 150 cms
and other backward classes)
(ii) Height (scheduled tribes) 152 cms 145 cms
(iii) Chest 084 cms 079 cms
(iv) Minimum chest expansion 005 cms 005 cms
(v) Physical calibre test walking within 026 kms 016 kms
four hours.
25. Rule 21 of the Rules of 2015 provides for relaxation to deal
with the case of any person to whom these rules may apply in
such manner as may appear to it to be just and proper. Rule
21 is extracted herein below for ready reference:-
“21.Nothing in these rules shall be construed to limit
or abridge the power of the Governor to deal with the
case of any person to whom these rules may apply in
such manner as may appear to it to be just and
proper.
Provided that the case shall not be dealt with in any
manner less favorable to him than that provided in
these rules.”
26. From the above quoted provisions of the Rules of 2015, it is
very clear that a candidate to become eligible for appointment
by way of direct recruitment, is expected to be of a particular
age and possess a particular degree. It is also provided that
any candidate shall be appointed to any service unless
he/she is declared mentally or physically fit; and a candidate
must satisfy themselves that he/she fulfills prescribed
31
minimum physical requirements as prescribed under the
rules, if notified for any post. Minimum physical requirements
prescribed under the Rules of 2015 consists of height, chest,
minimum chest expansion and physical caliter test walking of
26 kilometers in case of a male candidate and 16 kilometers
in case of a female candidate within four hours. The power of
relaxation under the Rules of 2015 is with the Governor,
which is not limited as it can be exercised as it may appear to
be just and equitable except that relaxation shall not be in any
manner less favourable to a candidate than that provided in
these Rules.
27. At this stage, I deem it appropriate to refer to relevant clauses
of the advertisement issued under the Rules of 2015 by the
Public Service Commission, which provides for selection and
appointment to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest
and Forest Ranger and also parameters for such selection.
28. On 10.6.2020 the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission
has issued an advertisement inviting application Form from
eligible candidates for the post of ‘Assistant Conservator of
Forest’ and ‘Forest Ranger’. This advertisement has been
issued as per the Rules of 2015. Clause 2 of the
advertisement prescribes eligibility criteria, which read thus:-
“(2) पद का विवरण, शैक्षणिक अर्हता एवं शारीरिक मापदण्ड
:-सहायक वन संरक्षक एवं वनक्षेत्रपाल :- (i) आवश्यक
32शैक्षणिक अर्हताः- (1) निम्नलिखित विषयों अर्थात् (1) जीव
विज्ञान (2) भौतिक शास्त्र (3) रसायन शास्त्र में से कम से कम
एक विषय के साथ हायर सेके ण्डरी परीक्षा या समकक्ष उत्तीर्ण
होना चाहिए।
(2) मान्यता प्राप्त विश्वविद्यालय से निम्नलिखित विषयों अर्थात्
कृ षि, वनस्पति शास्त्र, कम्प्यूटर अनुप्रयोग / विज्ञान, पर्यावरण
विज्ञान, वानिकी, भू-विज्ञान, बागवानी, गणित, सांख्यिकी,
भौतिकी, पशु विज्ञान, प्राणी शास्त्र में से कम से कम एक विषय
के साथ स्नातक या समकक्ष अथवा अभियांत्रिकी / तकनीकी
की किसी भी शाखा / विषय में स्नातक या समकक्ष होना
चाहिए।
(ii) शारीरिक मापदण्ड (न्यूनतम) :-
पुरुष महिला
(एक) ऊं चाई (अनारक्षित, अनुसूचित जाति 163 से.मी. 150 से.मी.
एवं अन्य पिछड़ा वर्ग)
(दो) ऊं चाई (अनुसूचित जनजाति) 152 से.मी. 145 से.मी.
(तीन) सीना 79 से.मी. 74 से.मी.
(चार) न्यूनतम सीना विस्तार 5 से.मी. 5 से.मी.
(पांच) शारीरिक क्षमता परीक्षण, चार घण्टे 26 कि.मी. 16 कि.मी.
पैदल चलना
29. A glance of qualifications incorporated under the
advertisement, as extracted herein above, would reflect that
the participating candidate is required to possess the
33qualification of graduation from recognized Board or its
equivalent examination. Apart from educational qualification,
the minimum physical parameters relating to height/chest
measurement for male female, 26 / 16 kilometer walk to be
completed in 4 hours are also mentioned as requirement in
the advertisement. The advertisement is specific that eligibility
criteria must be fulfilled by an aspiring candidate. This
advertisement does not contain any clause prescribing any
relaxation with respect to eligibility criteria relaxing any of
eligibility conditions specified in the advertisement at any later
stage.
30. A conjoint reading of the recruitment rules and advertisement
referred above, clearly shows that the essential qualifications
provided in the advertisement in question are in consonance
with the qualifications provided under the Rules of 2015.
31. Language used in Rule 11 (11) of the Rules of 2015
makes qualifying of minimum physical parameters, as
envisaged therein, to be mandatory.
32. Having referred the Rules of 2015 and terms and conditions
of the advertisement, now I will revert back to the facts of
present case.
33. Respondent Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission
advertised vacant posts of Assistant Conservator of Forest
and Forest Ranger in Forest Department and as per selection
34
procedure, written examination and interview was to be
conducted by the Public Service Commission and after
clearing said written examination and interview, candidates
were required to clear minimum physical parameters including
of walk test, which was to be conducted by respondent
Department. Pursuant to said advertisement, petitioners
participated in written test, they cleared written examination
and thereafter they were called for document verification and
interview. After interview, they were called to appear for
verification of documents and physical test. In the call letter
dated 31.8.2023 issued to candidates for participating in
physical test it is clearly mentioned that 26 kilometer walk by
male candidates and 16 kilometer walk by female candidates,
is to be completed within four hours. It was also clearly
mentioned that second chance for walk test will not be
granted. Petitioners in respective petitions, participated in
physical test, qualified in physical measurement test, but they
could not qualify physical caliber walk test as they failed to
complete 26 kilometer or 16 kilometer walk in 4 hours, as the
case may be.
34. Request of petitioners, who were unsuccessful in walk test, to
grant another chance to undergo walk test was accepted by
respondent No.2 vide letter dated 18.1.2024. Candidates,
who are in wait list, have challenged the action of respondent
35
No.2 in giving another chance to unsuccessful candidates to
undergo walk test by filing writ petitions before the High Court
bearing WPS No.407/2024, 504/2024, 1076/2024 &
1577/2024 on the ground that there is no provision to give
second chance to the candidates who have availed the first
chance unsuccessfully. During pendency of writ petitions, by
the impugned order, decision to grant another opportunity to
participate in walk test has been cancelled / withdrawn by
placing reliance on the recruitment Rules of 2015 wherein,
there is no provision to grant another chance to a candidate
who did not qualify prescribed minimum physical parameters.
35. Admittedly, the Rules of 2015 as also the advertisement
required a candidate to qualify minimum physical parameter
including walk test of 26 kms in case of male candidates and
in case of female candidates 16 kms to be completed in four
hours. Call letter dated 31.8.2023 issued to the candidates
for appearing in physical test clearly stipulates that walk test
is to be completed by the candidates within the time
prescribed because second chance will not be given. There
is nothing in the Rules of 2015 as also advertisement dated
10.6.2020 that in case a candidate remains unsuccessful in
walk test in the first attempt, a second chance is available to
him/her. Petitioners, who were declared unsuccessful in
physical test, have not brought to the notice of this Court any
36
provision allowing more than one opportunity to the
candidates to appear in physical test after failing to clear the
same in first attempt or mentioned in any clause of
advertisement.
36. Recruitment processes are to be strictly conducted under
defined rules, which apply uniformly to all candidates.
Granting a second opportunity to a candidate to reappear at a
specific stage of a public competitive recruitment process,
after having already been declared unsuccessful, is
completely unheard of. In case at hand, walk test was
conducted on a particular date and time. There may be
several reasons for not performing to an optimum level on a
particular date by particular candidate, but merely because
some candidates were unable to perform upto their
expectations on the date when the walk test was scheduled ,
that does not mean, that those candidates has to be afforded
a subsequent opportunity to appear in the said test. Allowing
any individual candidate to undergo the same test again at a
later date would amount to granting undue advantage,
thereby compromising the transparency, uniformity, and
integrity of the selection process. Further, it would also
amount to a clear departure from the stipulated conditions of
the selection process and would effectively amount to
37
changing the rules of the game after the selection process
has commenced.
37. In WP No.8848/2011, parties being Naresh Nigam vs State of
Madhya Pradesh and others, decided on 27.2.2019, the
petitioner therein, who was declared disqualified for the post
of Forest Guard on the ground that he failed to clear
qualifying walk in physical test within prescribed time of 4
hours, has sought for another chance for physical test. In
such a situation, the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya
Pradesh has held thus:-
“7. Upon perusal of the rules and from the record, we
do not find any rule which provides for second
chance to those candidates who have not qualified
the physical fitness test or any relaxation in that
regard. The petitioner referred Annexure P-1 dated
20-08-2008 issued by the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests, Bhopal to all the Conservator
of Forests (Territorial) regarding recruitment of daily
wager labours working in the department. Condition
No.1 is very clear that only those daily wager labours
working in the department shall be selected for
appointment on the post of Forest Guard, who
possess educational as well as physical
qualification . Thus, there is no provision either in the
Recruitment Rules or in any circular providing any
kind of relaxation in physical fitness test.”
38. In case of Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi (supra), Hon’ble Supreme
Court has observed that failure to qualify in the prescribed
38
physical test disentitle a candidate from claiming appointment
and no subsequent relaxation or second chance can be
claimed as a matter of right. Relevant para of said decision is
quoted below:-
“22. It is accepted position that the respondent
appeared in the test and could not qualify. Once he
did not qualify in the physical test, the High Court
could not have asked the Department to give him an
opportunity to hold another test to extend him the
benefit of compassionate appointment on the post of
Sub-Inspector solely on the ground that there has
been efflux of time. The respondent after being
disqualified in the physical test could not have
claimed as a matter of right and demand for an
appointment in respect of a particular post and the
High Court could not have granted further opportunity
after the crisis was over.
23.In our considered opinion, the order passed by the
Division Bench is wholly unsustainable and is hereby
set aside. We may, however, hasten to add that it is
open to the respondent to compete in the normal
course if eligible for the post of Sub-Inspector for
promotion in accordance with the rules prescribed for
promotion.”
39. In case of Bedanga Talukdar (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court
reaffirmed that appointments to public office must strictly
comply with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution, ensuring fairness and non-arbitrariness in the
selection process. It was held that the terms and conditions
39
stipulated in the advertisement are binding and must be
scrupulously followed. No relaxation of such conditions is
permissible unless the power to relax is expressly provided
either in the statutory rules or explicitly mentioned in the
advertisement itself. It was observed thus:-
“32. In the face of such conclusions, we have little
hesitation in concluding that the conclusion recorded by
the High Court is contrary to the facts and materials on
the record. It is settled law that there can be no
relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the
advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly
reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the
advertisement. Even if there is a power of relaxation in
the rules, the same would still have to be specifically
indicated in the advertisement. In the present case, no
such rule has been brought to our notice. In such
circumstances, the High Court could not have issued
the impugned direction to consider the claim of
Respondent 1 on the basis of identity card submitted
after the selection process was over, with the
publication of the select list.
(emphasis supplied)
40. In case of Tej Prakash (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has
explained the ambit of the expression “changing the rules of
the game” as under :
“52. Thus, in our view, the appointing authority
recruitment authority competent authority in
absence of rules to the contrary, can devise a
procedure for selection of a candidate suitable to the
post and while doing so, it may also set benchmarks
40for different stages of recruitment process including
written examination and interview. However, if any
such benchmark is set, the same should be
stipulated before the commencement of the
recruitment process……”
41. In view of above rulings and in light of the facts of present
case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the standard
prescribed in the advertisement in respect of physical test,
which is in consonance with the recruitment Rules of 2015,
cannot be relaxed as it would amount to changing the rules of
game in the midstream, which is impermissible, and the
petitioners in respective writ petitions cannot be given a
second chance.
42. So far a submission of learned counsel for petitioners in WPS
No.6989/2024, 1698/2025, 5373/2024 & 7394 2024
respectively, that once decision is taken by the department to
grant second chance to candidates for the reasons assigned
in the proceeding, it cannot be reconsidered and cancelled, is
concerned, the proceedings to provide second chance to
unsuccessful candidates for physical caliber walk test is
processed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest vide
letter dated 15.9.2023, which is filed as Annexure P-9 in WPS
No.7934/2024. Proposal forwarded for grant of second
chance to 29 unsuccessful candidate and 19 candidates who
were absent, was for the reason as mentioned therein that
walk test was not organized in the sports ground/stadium, but
41
was in open road at Nawa Raipur, as it was a working day
there was continuous movement of general public on road
and on the said date, temperature was also high. Proposal
was forwarded by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to
the Chief Secretary, Department of Forest and Climate
Chandge, Raipur. It further appears from the documents
enclosed along with Annexure P-9 that amended proposal
was called from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. In
the amended proposal and synopsis, the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest clearly mentioned that on the proposal
forwarded to the General Administration Department, no
opinion was given. Proposal also mentions to grant another
opportunity to the candidates who did not appear on the date
fixed for physical caliber test. Proceeding of the Principal
Chief Conservator of Forest dated 9.11.2023 further mentions
that based on the direction issued by the Forest Minister,
proposal and synopsis was forwarded to the General
Administration Department and the General Administration
Department clearly made note that there is no provision for
giving second chance under the rules and therefore, they are
having no opinion on the proposal. Even thereafter taking
note of the Indian Forest Services (Joint) Exam 2020, noted
that it will be appropriate to grant one more opportunity and
accordingly, based on that noting, respondent No.2 issued the
42
order. Provisions of the Indian Forest Service Exam may be
different.
43. Rule 21 of the Rules of 2015 provides for relaxation,
according to which, nothing in these rules shall be construed
to limit or abridge the power of the Governor to deal with the
case of any person to whom these rules may apply in such
manner as may appear to it to be just and proper. Even if
relaxation clause under the Rules of 2015 is to be considered
to be provision to relax some applicable provisions under the
Rules of 2015, then it is vested only with the Governor. In the
case at hand, if for any reason the respondent Department,
despite the fact that the General Administration Department
has not granted any opinion on the proposal forwarded, has
arrived at a conclusion that in the projected circumstances,
second opportunity for physical calibre test (walk test) can be
granted, then the proceeding could have been forwarded to
the Governor, but no such proceeding has been initiated.
44. In the aforementioned facts of the case, when there is specific
provision under the statutory Rules of 2015 which provides for
minimum physical standards including physical calibre test of
walking, then the power to relax any rule or condition is to be
exercised in the manner as provided under the Rules of 2015.
In the matter of Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, reported in
AIR 1936 PC 253 (2), it was observed that where a power is
43
given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be
done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance
are necessarily forbidden.
45. In case of I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi (2007)
6 SCC 162, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus:
“12….. Physical fitness being an essential eligibility
criteria, the Superintendent of Police could not have made
any recommendation in violation of the rules. Nothing has
been shown before us that even the petitioner came within
the purview of any provisions containing grant of relaxation
of such qualification. Whenever, a person invokes such a
provision, it would be for him to show that the authority is
vested with such a power.”
46. From the facts, as discussed in preceding paras, it is clear
that proposal to grant second chance to unsuccessful
candidates of physical calibre test (walk), is processed only
by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest even without
there being any provision under the law.
47. Submission of learned counsel for petitioners (unsuccessful
candidates), that step to review earlier decision has been
taken only because the officer is changed, in the opinion of
this Court, is not sustainable. If for any reason the outgoing
officer has committed any mistake, initiated any proceeding
contrary to the provisions of law, it is for the incumbent officer
to initiate proceeding to rectify the same in accordance with
law. In the case at hand also, after coming across the
44
procedure, which is not in accordance with the Rules of 2015
and clauses of advertisement, and further considering that in
that proceeding the Deputy Secretary of General
Administration Department after recording in detail and
observing that appropriate action be taken against erring
officer who attempted to provide undue benefit to disqualified
candidates, has further mentioned that said proceeding of
taking a decision to grant second opportunity of physical
calibre test (walk test) to be contrary to law. It was placed
before the Secretary wherein the Secretary in the note sheet
dated 27.6.2024 after putting before the Forest Minister and
bringing to his knowledge about relevant provisions and
taking into consideration opinion of the General Administration
Department, has recorded that the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest be informed that department is in
disagreement with the proposal to grant second
chance/opportunity to unsuccessful candidates of physical
calibre test (walk test). Accordingly, letter was also forwarded
to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest on 20.6.2024. On
7.10.2024 a letter is written by the Department of Forest and
Climate Change, that in view of letter dated 20.6.2024
decision taken in letter dated 18.1.2024 becomes
automatically ineffective.
45
48. In the above facts and circumstances of the case and the
manner of proceedings that had taken place with respect to
grant of second chance/opportunity to unsuccessful
candidates, which has been subsequently turned down by
department itself and the corrective measure which has been
taken by the department after reconsidering the proposal in
the light of relevant rules, clauses of advertisement and
opinion given by the General Administration Department, in
the opinion of this Court, cannot be said that the order/letter
dated 7.10.2024 of the department making earlier letter dated
18.1.2024 (giving second chance to unsuccessful candidates
and absentees) ineffective is issued only because of change
of view of the incumbent official. Decision taken is a
conscious one after considering all the aspects of the matter
including relevant rules, in particular sub-rule (11) of Rule 11
of the Rules of 2015.
49. So far as submission of learned counsel for respective
petitioners that one Varsha Kashyap, who was absent in walk
test conducted on 12.9.2023, has been granted chance to
undergo walk test, is concerned, it is not disputed by learned
Additional Advocate General for respondent State. Grant of
opportunity to Varsha Kashyap is not under challenge. Even
otherwise, negative parity cannot be claimed.
46
50. In case of R. Muthukumar and others vs Chairman and
Managing Director TANGEDCO, reported in 2022 SCC
Online SC 151, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:-
“28. A principle, axiomatic in this country’s
constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality.
In other words, if there has been a benefit or
advantage conferred on one or a set of people,
without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot
multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or
equality. In Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer14, this court ruled that:
“8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14
of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate
illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong
decisions made in other cases. The said
provision does not envisage negative equality
but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some
other similarly situated persons have been
granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by
mistake, such an order does not confer any legal
right on others to get the same relief as well. If a
wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot
be perpetuated.”
51. So far as decision dated 24.08.2022 of High Court of Gujarat
in bunch of petitions, lead case being R/Special Civil
Application No.4373/2022 (Gadhavi Narendra Kumar
Hingaljdanji & 6 others vs State of Gujarat & 20 otherse),
which is relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners
(unsuccessful candidates), is concerned, in said case the
47
Court has taken note of special facts that appointed Forest
Range Officers are continuously working for over six years;
petitioners challenge to the appointment of private
respondents may be belated; grievance of petitioners with
regard to their seniority position needs to be addressed
further. It was also observed that there is nothing in the Rules
to suggest that second chance was available; the rules are
silent is evident from the expressed provisions providing for
second chance in the Indian Forest Services Rules. In this
situation, the Court has observed that State has consciously
not made any provision to grant second chance in the rules.
Observation made in para-14 of said case in fact goes against
the petitioners herein. Thus, the decision relied upon by
concerned petitioners are distinguishable on facts.
52. So far as reliance on the decision dated 22.12.2023 delivered
in bunch of appeals, lead case being R/Letters Patent Appeal
No.1145/2022 (Trivedi Shailesh Kumar Rameshchandra vs
State of Gujarat), by learned counsel for petitioners is
concerned, in that case, Hon’ble Division Bench has
considered the recruitment on the post of Forest Range
Officer under the Gujarat Forest Services (Recruitment)
Rules, 2020 under which Rule 5 (A) provides for minimum
physical standards for direct selection which includes walk of
25 km for male and 14 kms for female. Under Rule 6, there is
48
clear mention that in case a candidate fails to complete the
walk test within prescribed time limit or fails to appear in the
test, shall be given one more chance to appear. Therefore,
the case relied upon by petitioners is distinguishable on facts.
53. Decision of High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, dated
1.2.2013 in bunch of petition lead case being Service Single
No.6542/2011 (Sudhakar Pandey vs the State of UP) is also
of no help to petitioners being distinguishable on facts. In that
case, physical efficiency test was conducted on different
dates and different places. The Court took note of the fact
that physical efficiency test was conducted in rainy condition
and inspite of heavy rain, test was not stopped resulting in
field being waterlogged and therefore, the pit falls, pit holes,
muddy condition over the track was created. It was further
taken note of that the Circular dated 20.7.2011 contained
direction for choosing alternate field where there was no
water logging etc., however, the physical efficiency test was
conducted on the same field and track and no alternative
field.
54. Decision dated 14.11.2018 in Civil Appeal (Writ)
No.1732/2018, parties being Thawara Ram vs State of
Rajasthan & ors, is also distinguishable on facts and of no
help to petitioners. In that case, admit card was uploaded in
the night of 4.9.2018, petitioner therein was to report from
49
District Sirohi to Jodhpur on the next date. Considering the
fact that petitioner therein has to travel whole night and to
participate in the physical efficiency test of 5 km run within
stipulated time, it was observed that it amounts to denial of
proper opportunity.
55. Decision rendered in case of Disha Panchal (supra) is also of
no help being distinguishable on facts. In that case, grievance
of candidates who participated in Common Law Test 2018
(CLAT), was that questions of examination did not appear on
the screen at the start, and were intermittently disappearing
and re-appearing; options to move to next question etc.
stopped working intermittently;blank screens or frozen
screens and software crashes; computers were dysfunctional
and rebooting them did not help.
56. In the case at hand, there is no such technical difficulties on
appearing of petitioners in physical test which was conducted
in open place and all 211 candidates were asked to
participate on one day, time and place.
57. Recently, in Civil Appeal No.4150/2026, parties being
Commissioner, Delhi Police and another vs Uttam Kumar,
decided on 2.4.2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that public employment is scarce, the stakes are
high, when it comes to public employment and opportunities
like these can be life changing for young people. When
50
chances are rare, one needs to grab them with both hands.
The boundaries for exercise of discretion are well carved out
beyond which the adjudicatory fora ought not to trench.
Grace, charity or compassion ought to stay at a distance in
matters of public employment, if a fair level playing field is to
be secured.
58. After the cases are reserved for orders on 24.3.2026, written
submissions on behalf of petitioners in WPS No.7394/2024
and 5373/2024 is handed over to the Reader of the Court,
raising some additional grounds and placing reliance on
decisions other than relied upon during course of hearing in
the Court. As the submissions and decisions forming part of
written submissions are not raised and relied upon by learned
Senior Counsel for petitioners in aforementioned writ
petitions, during the course of hearing when learned counsel
for other side were also present, in the opinion of this Court,
the same cannot be taken into consideration as it will deprive
the other side to meet the said arguments and submit on
those decisions. Therefore, written submission submitted on
behalf of petitioners in aforementioned writ petitions is not
considered by this Court while passing the order.
59. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, in the opinion of
this Court, there is no merit in WPS Nos.5373/2024,
51
6989/2024, 7384/24, 7394/2024, 7896/2024 and the same
are hereby dismissed.
60. So far as WPS No.7896/2025 & 3460/2025 are concerned,
the same are disposed of with a direction to the respondents
to take appropriate expeditious steps for filling up the posts
under the advertisement dated 10.6.2020, which continued to
remain vacant owing to operation of interim order passed by
this Court, considering the recommendation made by
respondent PSC, from wait list candidates, in accordance with
law.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-