2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10858

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Parth Prateem Sahu, J
KHUMENDRA KUMAR SAHU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPS No. 7384 of 2024|WPS No. 5373 of 2024|WPS No. 6989 of 2024|WPS No. 7394 of 2024|WPS No. 7896 of 2024|WPS No. 1698 of 2025|WPS No. 3460 of 2025

In public recruitment, essential qualifying standards, including physical tests, must be strictly enforced. Authorities cannot grant relaxations or second chances unless explicitly permitted by the rules or advertisement. Principles of parity cannot be invoked to perpetuate unauthorized relaxations or illegalities granted to others.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14, 16, and 309 - Recruitment to Public Office - Eligibility Criteria - Mandatory physical test - Power to relax rules - Absence of express power in rules or advertisement - Once the process of recruitment has commenced, the authority cannot change the rules of the game in midstream - Granting a second chance to unsuccessful candidates for a mandatory physical requirement, where not provided in the Rules, confers undue advantage and violates the principle of non-arbitrariness in public employment. (Paras 36, 39, 41)

(B) Administrative Law - Doctrine of Negative Equality - Article 14 of the Constitution - Benefit or advantage conferred on one person without legal basis cannot be relied upon by others as a principle of parity - Illegality or mistake in an earlier case cannot be perpetuated to create a legal right for others. (Paras 49, 50)

Facts of the case:
The recruitment process for gazetted forest service positions prescribed a mandatory physical caliber walk test to be completed within a specified time as an essential eligibility condition. Candidates who failed to clear the test in the first attempt sought a second opportunity, which was initially granted by departmental authorities but subsequently withdrawn upon realizing it contradicted the recruitment rules. Petitions were filed challenging the withdrawal of the second chance, while wait-listed candidates challenged the validity of granting such an opportunity.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the walk test was a mandatory minimum physical requirement directly linked to the functional needs of the post. Since the statutory rules and the advertisement did not provide for a second attempt, granting one would violate the integrity of the selection process. The court further held that the withdrawal of an erroneously granted permission by the authorities was a corrective measure within the law and did not constitute arbitrary action.

Issues: Whether candidates failing to qualify for the physical walk test within the prescribed time are entitled to a second chance, and whether the withdrawal of such permission by the authorities was legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in public employment, strict compliance with published selection criteria is mandatory to ensure fairness and transparency. Absent an express provision in the rules or advertisement, the authorities lack the power to relax essential eligibility benchmarks. Furthermore, the doctrine of negative equality does not entitle others to claim relief based on an erroneous or unauthorized benefit granted to another individual.

Result: Petitions seeking the second chance were dismissed; petitions for filling vacancies from the wait list were allowed.