Eligibility conditions in recruitment advertisements must be strictly construed. Age relaxation benefits targeted at 'educated unemployed' persons cannot be extended to individuals earning substantial income from professional engagements, and any relaxation granted without specific statutory authority or compliance with advertisement terms is illegal and void.

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

20.04.2026

1. Since both these above captioned appeals arise out of common impugned order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6748 of 2025 (Saket Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order taking WA No. 296 of 2026 (Kanan Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) as lead case.

2. WA No. 296 of 2026 has been filed by appellant, who was respondent No.7 in the WPS No. 6748 of 2025 filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.7 herein being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and set aside the selection of respondent No.7 therein as Boiler Inspector pursuant to advertisement, Annexure P/2 holding him as ineligible to participate in selection process / recruitment process being overage and directed the PSC / respondents therein to issue fresh select list of candidates based on proceeding concluded pursuant to advertisement dated 23.10.2024 Annexure P-2, wherein the writ petitioner is shown as wait list candidate at Sr. No.1, expeditiously within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the impugned order. In WA No. 343 of 2026, the very same impugned order has been challenged by the appellants / PSC, who were respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in the said writ petition.

3. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of both these appeals, are that pursuant to advertisement dated 23.10.2024 issued by the Public Service Commission (PSC) inviting applications for appointment on the post of ‘Boiler Inspector’, the respondent No.7 (Saket Agrawal) as well as appellant (Kanan Verma) submitted their application to the said post. They both participated in selection process as unreserved category candidates. After completion of selection process, appellant (Kanan Verma) was selected for appointment to the post of Boiler Inspector and the respondent No.7 (Saket Agrawal) has been shown to be at Sr. No.1 in wait list.

4. Challenging the selection of appellant (Kanan Verma), respondent No.7 / writ petitioner (Saket Agrawal) has filed a writ petition before this Court being WPS No. 6748 / 2025, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 17.02.2026 setting aside the selection of respondent No.7 therein (Kanan Verma) as Boiler Inspector pursuant to advertisement, Annexure P/2 holding him as ineligible to participate in selection process / recruitment process being overage and directed the PSC / respondents therein to issue fresh select list of candidates based on proceeding concluded pursuant to advertisement dated 23.10.2024 Annexure P-2, wherein the writ petitioner is shown as wait list candidate at Sr. No.1, expeditiously within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, WA No. 296 of 2026 has been preferred by appellant / respondent No.7 therein, whereas WA No. 343 of 2026, has been preferred by the appellants / PSC, who were respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in the said writ petition.

5. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge holding the appellant ineligible and setting aside his selection is wholly illegal, erroneous and contrary to the terms of the advertisement. It is contended that as per Clause 4 of the advertisement dated 23.10.2024, the maximum age limit for unreserved category cand