The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that a candidate for a public post cannot be disqualified under a two-child eligibility rule if the third child was born after the rule was formally omitted by government notification. This judgment reinforces the principle that administrative disqualifications must be grounded in operative law at the time of consideration, not in repealed provisions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dilip Kumar Patel, applied for the post of Rozgar Sahayak under a recruitment drive conducted by the Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Government of Chhattisgarh. He was initially included in the list of eligible candidates. However, his candidature was later cancelled based on an objection alleging that he had three children, with the third born after 26.01.2001, in violation of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961.
Key Facts
- The petitioner’s third son was born on 04.10.2017
- Sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1961 originally stated: "No candidate shall be eligible for appointment to a service or post who has more than two living children, of whom is born on or after the 26th day of January, 2001."
- On 13.07.2017, the State Government issued a circular omitting sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 entirely
- The revised advertisement for Rozgar Sahayak posts was issued on 15.09.2017, with the last date for application being 26.09.2017
- The petitioner submitted his application within the stipulated period
- An objection was filed on 16.10.2017 by Mukesh Kumar Sahu, leading to the cancellation of the petitioner’s candidature
- The cancellation was based on the now-omitted sub-rule, despite its non-existence at the time of consideration
Procedural History
- 15.09.2017: Advertisement for Rozgar Sahayak posts issued after omission of sub-rule (6)
- 26.09.2017: Last date for submission of applications
- 04.10.2017: Birth of petitioner’s third child
- 16.10.2017: Objection filed against petitioner’s eligibility
- Late 2017: Petitioner’s name removed from eligibility list
- 2019: Writ Petition No. 569 of 2019 filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh
- 27.03.2026: Hearing and judgment delivered by Single Bench
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the cancellation order, declaration that his candidature was valid, and direction to the respondents to consider his application for appointment without reference to the omitted sub-rule.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a candidate’s candidature for a public post can be rejected under a rule that had been formally omitted by government circular prior to the date of application and consideration.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 was omitted by the State Government’s circular dated 13.07.2017, which preceded both the advertisement (15.09.2017) and the petitioner’s application (on or before 26.09.2017). The third child was born on 04.10.2017, after the rule ceased to exist. Therefore, the disqualification had no legal basis at the time of evaluation. The petitioner relied on the principle that administrative action must conform to the law as it stands at the time of decision.
For the Respondent
The State counsel contended that the petitioner’s family composition violated the spirit of the two-child policy and that the omission of the rule was merely procedural. They argued that the intent of the policy remained intact and that the rejection was justified to uphold public interest in population control.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the sequence of events with precision. It noted that the omission of sub-rule (6) was not a mere administrative oversight but a formal circular issued by the State Government, which altered the legal framework governing eligibility. The advertisement issued on 15.09.2017 was published after this omission, and no reference to the two-child rule appeared in the revised terms.
"The rule which formed the basis of the objection was no longer in force at the time of consideration of the petitioner’s candidature. To apply a repealed provision is to act without legal authority."
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the policy intent could override the written law. It emphasized that public employment is governed by statutory rules, not by unenacted policy preferences. The objection raised on 16.10.2017 was based on a rule that had been deleted over three months earlier. The Court held that such reliance was legally unsustainable and amounted to arbitrary action.
The Court further observed that the petitioner had no knowledge of the impending omission at the time of application, and the State could not retroactively impose a disqualification that had been formally removed.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The impugned cancellation list was set aside. The respondent No. 4, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Takhatpur, was directed to consider the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Rozgar Sahayak without reference to sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1961. The decision was to be taken within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Rule Omission Nullifies Past Disqualifications
- Practitioners must verify whether a disqualifying rule has been formally omitted or amended before challenging or defending eligibility
- Administrative bodies cannot rely on repealed provisions to reject applications, even if the conduct occurred before repeal
- The operative law at the time of evaluation governs eligibility, not the law at the time of the event
Public Employment Must Follow Written Rules
- Policy intent cannot override statutory text in recruitment matters
- Any deviation from published rules invites judicial intervention under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution
- Recruitment advertisements must reflect the current version of service rules; outdated clauses must be expunged
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Objections raised against candidates must be grounded in rules that are currently in force
- Delays in updating eligibility criteria do not validate retrospective application of repealed norms
- Candidates are entitled to rely on the published rules at the time of application
