Khilesh Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - Nand Lal Sahu S/o Bhukhau Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kotmi Sonar, Tehsil - Akaltara, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶16

--- Petitioner(s)

¶17

Versus

¶18

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

2

¶20

2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Through Its Secretary, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶21

3 - Exam Controller Chattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶22

4 - Ajay Kumar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Achanakpali, Post - Chhind Sarangarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶23

5 - Manbodh Chouhan Aged About 29 Years R/o Bariharpali, Post - Singhpur Saraipali, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶24

6 - Gemlata Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Parskol, Post - Bana, Police Station - Aarang, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶25

7 - Kuleshwar Prasad Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Mohda, Post - Tarpongi, Tilda, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶26

8 - Mansukh Lal Verma Aged About 44 Years R/o Village - Khairghiti, Post - Dumardihkhurud Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶27

--- Respondent(s)

¶28

WPS No. 5350 of 2021

¶29

1 - Khilesh Verma S/o Bishal Singh Verma, Aged About 44 Years R/o Near Akash Gas Godam, Shri Nagar Gudhiyari, Po Wrs, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶30

2 - Ritesh Kumar Jaiswal, S/o Krishna Kumar Jaiswal, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Kathotia, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶31

--- Petitioner(s)

¶32

Versus

¶33

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶34

2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Through Its Secretary, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶35

3 - Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶36

3

¶37

4 - Ajay Kumar Aged About 30 Years Through The Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶38

5 - Manbod Chouhan, Aged About 29 Years Through The Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶39

6 - Gemlata Sahu, Aged About 35 Years Through The Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶40

7 - Kuleshwar Prasad Sahu, Aged About 35 Years Through The Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶41

8 - Mansukh Lal Verma, Aged About 44 Years Through The Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶42

--- Respondent(s)

¶43

WPS No. 5117 of 2021

¶44

1 - Pooja Singh D/o Ghanshyam Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Railway Station Para, Kunjnagar, Surajpur District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶45

2 - Bhushashi Khunte D/o Birsat Ram Khunte Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 09, Jamgahan, Tahsil And District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶46

--- Petitioner(s)

¶47

Versus

¶48

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶49

2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Through Its Secretary, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶50

3 - Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc), Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶51

4

¶52

4 - Hemendra Kumar Patel Aged About 41 Years Through The Exam Controller, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc), Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶53

5 - Mahesh Kumar Aged About 40 Years Through The Exam Controller, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc), Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶54

--- Respondent(s)

¶55

(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

¶56

For Petitioners :	Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ahmed Ayaaz Mirza, Advocate
For State/Resp. No. 1 :	Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. Advocate General
For CGPSC/Resp. No. 2 :	Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate
and 3	assisted by Mr. Pratik Vishwakarma, Advocate

¶57

(Division Bench)

¶58

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶59

C.A.V. Order

¶60

Per; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶61

A perusal of the contents and the factual matrix involved in all the writ petitions reveals that the core issue in controversy is identical in each of them. In view of the commonality of the questions involved, all these writ petitions were clubbed together, heard analogously, and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶62

The aforesaid batch of writ petitions has been instituted by the respective petitioners calling in question the legality, constitutional propriety, and procedural sanctity of the actions undertaken by the

¶63

5

¶64

Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “CGPSC”) in amending its Rules of Procedure and in preparing the final select lists for appointment to the posts of Assistant Professor in various disciplines. At the heart of the controversy lies the III Amendment Notification bearing No. 2268/Ped/2014/Su.Prau dated 19.03.2021, whereby the CGPSC amended the CGPSC Rules of Procedure, 2014 by inserting a new Clause 17.6. The petitioners contend that the said newly introduced Clause 17.6 has been applied retrospectively and mechanically in the preparation of final select lists for the posts of Assistant Professor in Physics, Chemistry, and Commerce, thereby materially altering the manner of selection and reservation after the initiation of the recruitment process. The gravamen of challenge is threefold which is as under :

¶65

Firstly, the petitioners assail the constitutional validity of Clause 17.6 on the ground that it is ultra vires Article 320 of the Constitution of India, which delineates the constitutional functions and limitations of a Public Service Commission. It is contended that the impugned amendment travels beyond the permissible scope of procedural regulation and encroaches upon substantive aspects of reservation and selection in a manner not sanctioned by constitutional or statutory mandate. The petitioners further submit that the impugned clause is in direct conflict with Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, inasmuch as it

¶66

6

¶67

allegedly distorts the scheme of horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities (Divyangjan category), thereby frustrating the statutory framework governing such reservation.

¶68

• Secondly, the petitioners challenge the consequential Final Selection Lists issued on 26.06.2021, 06.07.2021 and 29.07.2021 for the posts of Assistant Professor in Chemistry, Commerce, and Physics respectively. According to them, the select lists were prepared strictly on the basis of the impugned Clause 17.6, resulting in an impermissible and excessive application of horizontal reservation under the Physically Handicapped/Divyangjan quota. In certain cases, despite notified vacancies in a particular vertical category (e.g., Scheduled Caste) being specific and determinate, one post has allegedly been left vacant under the pretext of “carry forward” for want of a Divyang candidate, an approach which, according to the petitioners, is alien to the settled principles governing horizontal reservation. The petitioners assert that horizontal reservation must operate within the notified vacancies and cannot result in artificial vacancy creation or distortion of the vertical roster.

¶69

Thirdly, in some of the writ petitions, the selection of private respondents has been specifically challenged on the allegation that their appointment was secured not on merit

¶70

7

¶71

but by reason of an allegedly disproportionate and erroneous application of the Divyang quota. The petitioners, who claim to have secured higher merit positions within their respective categories, contend that they have been unlawfully relegated to the supplementary or waiting lists solely due to the flawed implementation of the impugned amendment.

¶72

• In addition to the constitutional and statutory challenges, certain petitioners have raised serious objections regarding arbitrariness and lack of transparency in the selection process. It is contended that the CGPSC failed to publish the comparative merit list and waiting list, thereby depriving candidates of the opportunity to ascertain their marks and verify the fairness of the selection. Such non-disclosure, it is urged, is in contravention of Rule 12 of the Chhattisgarh Higher Education Department (Collegiate Branch Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2019, which mandates publication of the select list on the official website. The plea of the Commission that the matter was sub judice is stated to be untenable in the absence of any prohibitory interim order restraining declaration of results. In one of the petitions, the consequential appointment order dated 21.01.2022 has also been impugned on the ground that it is founded upon an allegedly illegal and constitutionally infirm selection list, and therefore cannot survive independently once the

¶73

8

¶74

foundational process itself is under challenge. In essence, the writ petitions have been filed to vindicate the petitioners’ fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, to assail the vires of the impugned amendment introducing Clause 17.6, and to seek judicial scrutiny of the manner in which horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities has been operationalised in the impugned selections, which, according to the petitioners, has resulted in arbitrariness, illegality, and denial of equal opportunity in public employment.

¶75

Before adverting to the rival submissions and examining the issues arising for consideration, it would be apposite to first delineate, in seriatim, the specific reliefs sought by the petitioners in each of the aforesaid writ petitions, so as to clearly comprehend the precise nature and ambit of the challenge laid before this Court. The petitioners have prayed for following reliefs :--

¶76

W.P.S. No. - 5102/2021

¶77

“10.1 To kindly hold and declare that the impugned Clause no.1 of the III Amendment Notification vide no.2268/Ped/2014/Su.Prau dated 19/03/2021 issued by the respondent Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission (in short CGPSC) amending the CGPSC Rules of Procedure and-2014 (in short ROP) is ultra vires to the Constitution of India. (Annexure P/1) .

¶78

9

¶79

10.2 To kindly quash the impugned final selection list dated 29/07/2021 and direct the respondent CG Public Service Commission to re-issue the select list in accordance with law. (Annexure P/2).

¶80

10.3 To kindly direct the respondent CG Public Service Commission to consider the petitioner for selection in the SC category.

¶81

10.4 To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”

¶82

W.P.S. No. - 5117/2021

¶83

“10.1 To kindly hold and declare that the impugned Clause no.1 of the 111 Amendment Notification vide no.2268/Ped/2014/Su.Prau dated 19/03/2021 issued by the respondent Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission (in short CGPSC) amending the CGPSC Rules of Procedure and-2014 (in short ROP) is ultra vires to the Constitution of India. (Annexure P/1) .

¶84

10.2 To kindly quash the impugned final selection list dated 26/06/2021 and direct the respondent CG Public Service Commission to re-issue the select list in accordance with law. (Annexure P/2) .

¶85

10.3 To kindly direct the respondent CG Public Service Commission to cancel the selection of less meritorious

¶86

10

¶87

respondents no.4 and 5 for the post of Assistant Professor- Chemistry and consider the petitioners for selection in the unreserved category.

¶88

10.4 To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”

¶89

W.P.S. No. - 5350/2021

¶90

“10.1 To kindly hold and declare that the impugned Clause no.1 of the III Amendment Notification vide no.2268/Ped/2014/Su.Prau dated 19/03/2021 issued by the respondent Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission (in short CGPSC) amending the CGPSC Rules of Procedure and-2014 (in short ROP) is ultra vires to the Constitution of India. (Annexure P/1) .

¶91

10.2 To kindly quash the impugned final selection list dated 06/07/2021 and direct the respondent CG Public Service Commission to re-issue the select list in accordance with law. (Annexure P/2) .

¶92

10.3 To kindly direct the respondent CG Public Service Commission to cancel the selection of less meritorious respondents no.4 to 8 for the post of Assistant Professor- Commerce and consider the petitioner for selection in the unreserved category in accordance with the merit which has been kept abreast by the PSC itself.

¶93

10.4 To kindly direct the respondent CG

¶94

11

¶95

Public Service Commission to forthwith issue the merit list and waiting list of the Commerce subject showing comparative merits of the candidates.

¶96

10.5 To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”

¶97

W.P.S. No. - 3636/2022

¶98

“10.1 To kindly hold and declare that the impugned Clause no.1 of the III Amendment Notification vide no.2268/Ped/2014/Su.Prau dated 19/03/2021 issued by the respondent Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission (in short CGPSC) amending the CGPSC Rules of Procedure and-2014 (in short ROP) is ultra vires to the Constitution of India. (Annexure P/1)

¶99

10.2 To kindly quash the impugned final selection list dated 06/07/2021 (Annexure P/2) and direct the respondent CG Public Service Commission to re-issue the select list in accordance with law.

¶100

10.3 To kindly quash the appointment order dated 21/01/2022 (Annexure P/3) issued by the State Government/Respondent no.1.

¶101

10.4 To kindly direct the respondent CG Public Service Commission to cancel the selection of less meritorious respondents no.4 to 8 for the post of Assistant Professor-Commerce and

¶102

12

¶103

consider the petitioner for selection in the unreserved category in accordance with the merit which has been kept abreast by the PSC itself.

¶104

10.5 To kindly direct the respondent CG Public Service Commission to forthwith issue the merit list and waiting list of the Commerce subject showing comparative merits of the candidates.

¶105

10.6 To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”

¶106

The brief facts of the case, as projected in all the writ petition, are that these petitions arise out of a common recruitment process initiated by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “CGPSC”) for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in various subjects under the Higher Education Department, State of Chhattisgarh. The State Government, in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, notified the Chhattisgarh Higher Education Department (Collegiate Branch Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2019 on 16.01.2019, wherein the cadre strength of Assistant Professors was prescribed as 3855 posts. Pursuant to the said statutory framework, CGPSC issued Advertisement No. 02/2019 dated 18.01.2019, published on 23.01.2019, inviting applications for 1384 posts of Assistant Professor in different

¶107

13

¶108

subjects including Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Commerce. The present petitioners belong to these respective subjects and participated in the same selection process. It is not in dispute that the advertisement underwent several corrigenda whereby the upper age limit was enhanced, certain posts were identified and re-identified for Persons with Disabilities, and the number of posts reserved for Divyang candidates was revised. The petitioners, being eligible in all respects, submitted their applications which were accepted by the Commission. They thereafter appeared in the written examination conducted in November 2020 and were subsequently called for interview. The grievance common to all the petitioners is that after completion of the written examination and interviews, the Commission did not publish a separate written merit list, did not disclose interview marks, and did not publish any waiting list. Instead, a final select list was directly issued in July 2021. During the pendency of the recruitment process, CGPSC issued a notification dated 19.03.2021 amending the CGPSC Rules of Procedure, 2014 by inserting Clause 17.6 including Clause 17.6.1.6. The said provision stipulated that candidates securing marks equal to or more than the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for the Unreserved category would be identified under the Unreserved category irrespective of the vertical category to which they originally belonged. According to the petitioners, this amendment was introduced after the written examination had already been conducted and was applied while

¶109

14

¶110

preparing the final select list, thereby altering the manner in which horizontal reservation for Persons with Disabilities was to be implemented. It is contended that the amendment materially changed the criteria governing migration of candidates across categories and adversely affected the rights of meritorious candidates. The petitioners collectively assert that reservation for Persons with Disabilities under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is horizontal in nature and is required to operate within the respective vertical categories. It is their case that a candidate belonging to SC, ST or OBC category who is also a person with disability cannot be shifted to the Unreserved category merely by virtue of securing marks equivalent to the minimum qualifying marks of the Unreserved category unless such candidate is selected strictly on open merit without availing the benefit of reservation. The petitioners contend that by virtue of Clause 17.6.1.6, a sub-classification has effectively been created within the Unreserved category, resulting in selection of less meritorious candidates over more meritorious general category candidates. In WPS No. 3636/2022 pertaining to the subject of Commerce, an additional challenge has been raised questioning the very competence of CGPSC to frame or amend Rules of Procedure in a manner affecting substantive rights. It is contended that the amended Rules of Procedure lack statutory force and that in absence of specific legislation enacted under Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule governing the

¶111

15

¶112

functioning of the Commission, the amendment is ultra vires Articles 315 and 320 of the Constitution of India. Another common grievance raised in the petitions relates to the manner of calculation and carry forward of vacancies reserved for Persons with Disabilities. It is contended that Section 34 of the 2016 Act mandates computation of the minimum four percent reservation on the basis of cadre strength and not on the basis of advertised vacancies. Since the cadre strength of Assistant Professors is 3855 posts, the petitioners submit that the Commission erred in calculating reservation on the basis of 1384 advertised posts. It is further alleged that certain vertical category posts, including at least one Unreserved seat, have been kept vacant and that the formula adopted for carry forward of backlog vacancies under Clause 17.6.4 is contrary to law. The petitioners have also alleged lack of transparency in the selection process. According to them, non-publication of detailed merit lists and non-disclosure of comparative marks have deprived them of the opportunity to meaningfully challenge the selection process. They assert that introduction and application of amended provisions after completion of the written examination amounts to changing the rules of the game after the game has begun, thereby offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Thus, all four writ petitions stem from a common recruitment notification and challenge the legality of the amended Rules of Procedure dated 19.03.2021, the implementation of horizontal reservation for

¶113

16

¶114

Persons with Disabilities, the alleged excess and improper carry forward of reserved vacancies, and the transparency of the selection process culminating in the final select list issued in July 2021. The petitions, though relating to different subjects, involve overlapping factual backgrounds and raise interconnected questions of constitutional and statutory interpretation arising out of the same selection process conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission.

¶115

Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Ahmed Ayaan Mirza, Advocate have advanced elaborate and coordinated arguments assailing the legality of the III Amendment Notification dated 19.03.2021 issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (hereinafter “CGPSC”) and the consequential select list dated 29.07.2021/14.07.2021 for the post of Assistant Professor (Physics). The grievance, though articulated in separate pleadings, is substantially common and arises out of the amendment inserting Clause 17.6 (particularly 17.6.3.5/17.6.4) into the Rules of Procedure, 2014 and its application in the preparation of the impugned select list. At the outset, learned counsel submit that the very foundation of the impugned amendment is constitutionally unsustainable. It is contended that the Rules of Procedure, 2014 have been framed by the Secretary of the Commission as internal guidelines for conduct of examinations and do not possess statutory character. The III Amendment Notification dated 19.03.2021, which substantially

¶116

17

¶117

alters the method of identification and carry-forward of vacancies, has not been issued by the Governor in exercise of powers under Article 309 or under the proviso to Article 320(3) of the Constitution of India. Articles 315 and 320 delineate the constitutional status and functions of Public Service Commissions. Article 320(3)(a) mandates consultation of the Commission on matters relating to recruitment, whereas the proviso thereto empowers only the Governor (in respect of State services) to make regulations specifying matters where consultation is not necessary. It is urged that the power to make binding regulations affecting recruitment cannot be assumed by the Commission itself in absence of delegation by the Governor and compliance with Article 320(5), which requires laying such regulations before the Legislature for not less than fourteen days. According to learned counsel, Entry 41 of List II (State List) read with Article 309 makes it abundantly clear that recruitment and conditions of service are to be regulated either by legislation or by rules framed by the Governor. The petitioners do not challenge the validity of the Chhattisgarh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 2019, which were admittedly framed under Article 309. However, they specifically challenge the amendment to the Rules of Procedure, 2014, contending that the same travels beyond procedural guidance and encroaches upon substantive reservation policy. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mandeep Singh v.

¶118

18

¶119

State of Punjab (2025 SCC Online SC 1420), Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & another v. Tage Habung & Others [(2013) 7 SCC 737] and Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath [(2009) 5 SCC 1] to contend that a Public Service Commission cannot assume legislative authority in the absence of express constitutional sanction. Learned counsel further submit that no regulation as contemplated under Article 320(5) has been laid before the State Legislature. Documents obtained from the official website of the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly demonstrate that no such legislation or regulation was laid in the relevant period. Thus, the amendment dated 19.03.2021 lacks statutory force within the meaning of Article 13(3) and is ultra vires the Constitution. On merits, the principal challenge pertains to the formula introduced for carry-forward and identification of vacancies of Divyang (physically handicapped) candidates under Clause 17.6.3.5. It is argued that reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities is a horizontal reservation governed by Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Section 34 mandates not less than four percent reservation in the cadre strength, not in the notified vacancies. The impugned formula, however, operates vacancy-wise and proportionately reduces vertical reservation categories (SC/ST/OBC/UR) in the name of carry-forward of unfilled horizontal vacancies, thereby distorting the constitutional scheme. Learned counsel submit that horizontal reservation must

¶120

19

¶121

operate on the principle of “interlocking” with vertical reservation as laid down in Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India & Others [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217] and clarified in Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P . [1995 (5) SCC 173] . It is argued that the Commission has failed to clarify whether the horizontal reservation was compartmentalised or overall. The advertisement dated 23.01.2019 indicates horizontal and compartment-wise reservation, yet the actual implementation reflects an overall adjustment leading to prejudice to vertical categories, particularly the Unreserved category. To demonstrate the distortion, learned counsel placed before the Court the subject-wise position for Physics (Total posts: 116; Select list issued: 92). The vacancy and selection position, as per petitioners in Physics subject, is as follows:

¶122

Category	Total Posts	Selected	Vacant
UR	35	24	11
OBC	12	11	1
SC	19	18	1
ST	50	33	17

¶123

It is contended that though 10 posts were shown as reserved for physically handicapped candidates (5 current + 5 backlog), 7% of 116 posts would mathematically amount to approximately 8 posts. The Commission, by applying the impugned formula, has

¶124

20

¶125

deducted 11 seats from the Unreserved category under the guise of carry-forward. The petitioners argue that such deduction is contrary to the law laid down in Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission [2007 (8) SCC 785] and Sourav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2021 (4) SCC 542] , which emphasize correct sequencing in application of vertical and horizontal reservations. Particular emphasis is laid on the case of Jagdish Kumar (SC category), who secured 215.9986 marks and stood at Sl. No. 25 in the merit list. It is argued that he ought to have been adjusted against the Unreserved category on merit, thereby freeing one SC seat. By not adjusting him in the UR category, the Commission has compromised the SC quota and distorted the merit-based allocation. This, according to counsel, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is further submitted that the Commission’s stand is self-contradictory. In one breath, it asserts that the selection list was prepared on the basis of the 08.03.2017 amendment; in another, it admits in paragraph 8(c) of its reply that the calculation formula of 19.03.2021 was applied. This inconsistency, counsel argue, reveals arbitrariness and lack of transparency. Learned counsel also contend that carry-forward of horizontal reservation must relate to cadre strength and not merely to advertised vacancies. In support, reliance is placed upon Ramnaresh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024 SCC Online SC 2058) and Sadhna Singh Dangi v. Pinki Asati [(2022) 12 SCC 401 . Addressing the preliminary objection

¶126

21

¶127

that candidates who participated in the selection process cannot challenge it after failure, counsel rely upon Dr. Major Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar [(2019) 20 SCC 17] to submit that participation does not bar challenge where the illegality pertains to a constitutional or statutory violation in the process itself. The petitioners participated as per prescribed rules but cannot be estopped from questioning unconstitutional amendments. On the objection of non-joinder of necessary parties, it is submitted that all affected candidates have been impleaded in a representative capacity and the challenge is to the systemic illegality in preparation of the select list. Reliance is placed on Union of India v. O. Chakradhar [(2002) 3 SCC 146], General Manager, South Central Railway v. A.V.R. Siddhanti [(1974) 4 SCC 335], V. P. Shrivastava v. State of M.P. [(1996) 7 SCC 759] and Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai [(2022) 12 SCC 579] to contend that in cases involving challenge to an entire selection process, individual impleadment of every selected candidate is not mandatory.

¶128

Learned counsel submit that petitioner No. 1, Pooja Singh, (W.P.S. No. 5117/2021 – Pooja Singh & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) (Subject: Chemistry) belongs to the Unreserved category and stood at Serial No. 2 in the waiting list (later appointed upon vacancy), whereas petitioner No. 2 belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and stood at Serial No. 14 in the consolidated waiting list and Serial No. 2 in the SC waiting list. In

¶129

22

¶130

the subject of Chemistry, total posts advertised were 150, out of which select list was issued for 118 posts. The category-wise position is demonstrated thus:

¶131

Category	Total Posts	Selected	Vacant
UR	40(12 women)	37	3(effectively 5
			unfilled)
OBC	14(3 women)	13	1
SC	17 (4 women)	16	1
ST	79 (23 women)	50	29

¶132

It is submitted that though 40 posts were earmarked for UR category, only 37 were filled. Out of the 3 shown as vacant, 2 were treated as UR-PH and filled by OBC candidates (Sl. Nos. 67 & 68), namely Hemendra Kumar Patel (OBC – selected as URPH-OL) and Mahesh Kumar (OBC – selected as UR-PH-OL). Learned counsel contend that under compartmentalised horizontal reservation, only one OBC physically handicapped candidate could have been adjusted in UR-PH slot; however, two such candidates were accommodated, thereby diminishing the effective UR quota. It is further pointed out that 7% of 150 posts would mathematically amount to 10.5 seats, whereas the advertisement dated 23.11.2019 shows 6 current and 4 backlog PH seats. The petitioners argue that the application of the amended formula resulted in distortion of both vertical and horizontal quotas. In SC category, although 17 posts were

¶133

23

¶134

earmarked, 16 were filled and additionally SC-PH candidates (Ben Vikram Barman and Santosh Kumar Dahariya) were accommodated, resulting in excess adjustment and improper interlocking. Similarly, OBC-PH and SC-PH adjustments were made without strictly following the compartmentalised model mandated in Rajesh Kumar Daria (Supra) and Swati Gupta v. State of U.P [(1995) 2 SCC 560] . Learned counsel argue that horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities, as clarified by circular dated 27.09.2014 (relied upon by the Commission itself), is compartmentalised and must operate within each vertical category, not by wholesale adjustment at the UR level.

¶135

In the subject of Commerce (W.P.S. No. 3636/2021 – Nand Lal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and W.P.S. No. 5350/2021 – Khilesh Verma & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), 184 total posts were advertised and select list issued for 179 posts. The vertical breakup is as follows:

¶136

Category	Total Posts	Selected	Vacant
UR	44(15 women)	35	9
SC	27(7 women)	27	0
ST	89 (26 women)	88	1
OBC	24 (6 women)	22	2
PH(Overall)	11 (OA-OL)	Adjusted across categories	-

¶137

24

¶138

Learned counsel emphasize that out of 44 UR posts, only 35 candidates were selected on merit, despite women quota already being satisfied. Thus, 9 UR posts remained effectively unfilled. However, those vacancies were not filled from the waiting list; instead, multiple candidates belonging to OBC and SC categories were adjusted as UR-PH candidates. Specifically, 3 OBC candidates (Sl. Nos. 137, 144 & 146) were selected as UR-PHOL, 2 UR candidates (Sl. Nos. 126 & 128) were selected as URPH (OA-OL), 2 SC candidates (Sl. Nos. 106 & 130) were selected as UR-PH, 1 OBC candidate (Sl. No. 152) selected as OBC-PHOA and 1 SC candidate (Sl. No. 179) selected as SC-PH-OL. It is contended that such cross-category adjustment without first completing vertical quota strictly on merit violates the sequencing principle laid down in Sourav Yadav (Supra) and State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shobana [2021 (4) SCC 686] . The proper course, as repeatedly emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is to fill Open Category (merit) seats first, fill vertical reserved categories. Thereafter apply horizontal reservation by interlocking and adjustment. Learned counsel submit that the Commission reversed or conflated these steps, thereby reducing available vertical seats in the name of horizontal adjustment. It is further argued that even in OBC category, though 24 posts were earmarked, only 22 were filled and two left vacant. However, instead of filling those from eligible OBC candidates, the Commission proceeded with PH adjustments across categories.

¶139

25

¶140

In SC category, 27 posts were filled, including 1 SC-PH, but without undertaking a lawful identification process for carryforward in accordance with Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The petitioners, particularly in W.P.S. No. 5350/2021 and 3636/2021, belong to OBC category and contend that their legitimate right of consideration against vertical OBC quota has been adversely affected by improper diversion of seats under the impugned formula introduced on 19.03.2021. Learned counsel collectively submit that the amendment dated 19.03.2021 is constitutionally ultra vires Articles 309 and 320, as it was not framed by the Governor nor laid before the Legislature. The formula for carry-forward under Clause 17.6 violates Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 by computing reservation vacancy-wise instead of cadre-strengthwise. Horizontal reservation for PH candidates is compartmentalised, as per circular dated 27.09.2014 and binding precedents including Rajesh Kumar Daria (Supra) . The sequencing principle laid down in Sourabh Yadav (Supra) has been violated. Excess or misallocated PH adjustments have diminished UR and OBC vertical quotas. Waiting list candidates, including Pooja Singh and others, were entitled to appointment against wrongly withheld UR vacancies. Carry-forward should have been done after proper identification and only against cadre strength, not by reducing notified vertical vacancies. Thus, it is emphatically submitted that the impugned select lists dated

¶141

26

¶142

14.07.2021/29.07.2021 in Physics, Chemistry and Commerce suffer from systemic illegality in the application of horizontal reservation, unconstitutional amendment of procedural rules, and misapplication of binding Supreme Court precedents.

¶143

In sum, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the amendment dated 19.03.2021 is ultra vires Articles 309 and 320. The formula for carry-forward violates Section 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016. Horizontal reservation has been improperly applied, reducing vertical quotas. The select list dated 29.07.2021/14.07.2021 is constitutionally unsustainable. The impugned notification and consequential select list deserve to be quashed, and the Commission be directed to redraw the select list strictly in accordance with constitutional principles governing vertical and horizontal reservations. Thus, the learned counsel urge this Court to declare Clause 17.6 (as amended on 19.03.2021) unconstitutional and to set aside the impugned select list with consequential directions for fresh preparation in accordance with law.

¶144

Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate apprearing on behalf of the respondent, namely the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, submits that much of the controversy sought to be projected by the petitioners dissolves the moment the vacancy position is examined in its correct structural framework. The grievance is not rooted in any illegality; rather, it arises from a misreading of how

¶145

27

¶146

vertical and horizontal reservations are intended to operate in tandem. Therefore, before adverting to legal submissions, it becomes necessary to present the vacancy architecture in a lucid and expanded form so that the Court may appreciate that the Commission has acted with mathematical precision, constitutional fidelity and complete transparency. The recruitment was initiated for 1,384 posts of Assistant Professor under Advertisement No. 02/2019. Insofar as the present writ petitions concern the subjects of Physics, Commerce and Chemistry, the vacancy distribution, after compliance with judicial directions and revision of reservation for Persons with Disabilities in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the law declared in Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind [(2013) 10 SCC 772], stood finalised. The following charts demonstrate not merely the raw numerical allocation, but the structural layering of vertical and horizontal reservations, thereby making it evident that horizontal reservations were interlocked within vertical compartments and not superimposed in a manner that would disturb category equilibrium.

¶147

Subject: Physics (Total Posts – 116)

¶148

Step 1: Vertical Distribution as per Recruitment Rules

¶149

Step 2: Horizontal Reservation for Women (Within Each Vertical Category)

¶150

Step 3: Horizontal Reservation for Persons with Disabilities

¶151

Category Total Vertical Women Balance PwD Reserved Posts Reserved Vertical Posts (Horizontal

¶152

28

¶153

		(Horizontal)		out of Total)
UR	35	10	25	-
SC	19	5	14	-
ST	50	14	36	-
OBC	12	3	9	-
Total	116	-	84 (Open within Vertical)	10 (OA–OL category)

¶154

These 10 posts were not carved out from any single vertical class. They operated horizontally across UR, SC, ST and OBC in proportion to their representation in the cadre strength. When eligible PwD candidates were not available to the full extent of identified vacancies, the Commission invoked proportional adjustment and carry forward strictly in terms of Section 34(2) of the Act of 2016 and the governing Rules of Procedure. The proportional deduction formula ensured that SC category strength was adjusted in proportion to its share in total vacancies, ST category strength was adjusted proportionately, OBC category strength was adjusted accordingly, Remaining adjustment balanced within UR, thereby preserving the constitutional symmetry of reservation percentages under Articles 14 and 16. This demonstrates that there was no arbitrary depletion of any particular category. The architecture remained intact; only mathematical redistribution consistent with statutory command was undertaken.

¶155

Subject: Commerce (Total Posts – 184)

¶156

29

¶157

Step 1: Vertical Distribution

¶158

Step 2: Women Reservation (Horizontal Within Vertical)

¶159

Step 3: PwD Reservation (Horizontal Across Total Cadre)

¶160

Category	Total Vertical Posts	Women Reserved	PwD Reserved (Horizontal)
UR	44	11	-
SC	17	4	-
ST	89	23	-
OBC	34	7	-
Total	184	-	11 (OA–OL category)

¶161

Again, these 11 posts were horizontally adjustable across vertical categories. They did not constitute a fifth vertical class. Their adjustment was in consonance with the interlocking reservation doctrine explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav (Supra) . Importantly, interim judicial orders in connected matters required certain posts to be kept vacant, which explains the deferred publication of finalised merit positions. However, the reservation arithmetic itself remained unaltered and legally compliant.

¶162

Subject: Chemistry (Total Posts – 150)

¶163

Step 1: Vertical Distribution

¶164

Step 2: Women Reservation (Horizontal)

¶165

Step 3: PwD Reservation (Horizontal Across Total)

¶166

Category	Total Vertical	Women Reserved	PwD Reserved
	Posts		(Horizontal)
UR	40	12	-
SC	17	4	-
ST	79	23	-

¶167

30

¶168

OBC	14	3	-
Total	150	-	10 (OA–OL
			category)

¶169

The same structural methodology was followed. The vertical backbone of the recruitment remained undisturbed. Horizontal reservations for Women and PwD were fitted within the vertical grid without inflating or diluting category strength.

¶170

What becomes manifest from the above expanded charts is that the Commission followed a three-layered reservation structure; First, the vertical compartmentalisation as mandated by statutory recruitment rules. Second, horizontal reservation for women within each vertical category. Third, horizontal reservation for Persons with Disabilities cutting across the entire cadre strength. There was no retrospective rule application, no post-examination change of criteria, and no artificial re-engineering of merit. Every adjustment was traceable either to statutory mandate or binding precedent, particularly National Federation of the Blind (Supra) , which unequivocally recognised that horizontal reservation must be computed on total cadre strength and adjusted within vertical categories without breaching constitutional limits. Thus, when the petitioners contend that their category strength was “reduced” or “disturbed,” they overlook that the reduction, if any, was proportionate and statutorily mandated on account of horizontal reservation. It was not discretionary, but obligatory. The vacancy charts themselves, when properly appreciated, dismantle the

¶171

31

¶172

edifice of the petitioners’ challenge. The Commission has not altered the rules; it has operationalised them. It has not manipulated reservation; it has mathematically implemented it. It has not deprived any category; it has proportionately balanced all categories. In the circumstances, the structural clarity emerging from the above charts reinforces the submission that the selection process was conducted in strict adherence to constitutional principles, statutory prescription, and binding judicial precedent.

¶173

In view of the entire factual matrix, the statutory framework governing the recruitment, the judicial directions complied with during the process, and the binding pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it becomes abundantly clear that the challenge mounted in the present batch of writ petitions is devoid of any sustainable legal foundation. The recruitment in question was initiated pursuant to a valid advertisement, conducted strictly in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, and procedurally regulated by the Rules of Procedure of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission as they stood on the date of advertisement. There has been no deviation from the governing rules, no retrospective application of amendments, and no alteration of criteria after commencement of the selection process. The entire grievance of the petitioners rests upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of horizontal reservation. The law as declared in National Federation of the Blind (Supra) and reiterated in Saurav Yadav

¶174

32

¶175

(Supra) leaves no manner of doubt that reservation for Persons with Disabilities is horizontal in nature and must be interlocked within vertical categories without disturbing their constitutional structure. The Commission has followed precisely this mandate. The proportional adjustment undertaken wherever PwD vacancies remained unfilled was not an act of discretion but a statutory obligation flowing from Section 34(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The mathematical methodology adopted ensured that no single vertical category was disproportionately affected and that the equilibrium of reservation percentages remained intact. It is further significant that all petitioners participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the advertisement, the distribution of vacancies, the reservation framework and the governing Rules of Procedure. They raised no challenge at the threshold stage. Only after the declaration of the final selection list and upon finding themselves unsuccessful have they chosen to question the very mechanism under which they competed. Such a course is impermissible in law. A candidate who consciously participates in a selection process cannot subsequently assail the rules of the game after the result has gone against him. The doctrine of acquiescence squarely applies. Moreover, none of the petitioners has demonstrated that he or she secured marks higher than the last selected candidate in the respective adjusted category. There is no pleading or material establishing that a more meritorious candidate has been excluded

¶176

33

¶177

in favour of a less meritorious one within the same category. In the absence of such foundational facts, the challenge remains speculative. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is not intended to facilitate a roving recalculation of reservation arithmetic or to reevaluate merit lists prepared in accordance with statutory norms. The Commission, being a constitutional authority entrusted with conducting fair and transparent selections, has discharged its functions with scrupulous adherence to law. It has complied with judicial directions, implemented statutory reservation for Persons with Disabilities, preserved the vertical reservation matrix for SC, ST and OBC categories, and ensured that horizontal reservations for women and PwD were adjusted strictly within permissible limits. The selection process reflects administrative fairness, constitutional compliance and procedural transparency. Interference at this stage, in the absence of any demonstrated illegality, arbitrariness or mala fide exercise of power, would unsettle a concluded selection, disturb the rights of duly selected candidates who are not at fault, and undermine the finality essential to public recruitment processes. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently cautioned that courts must exercise restraint in matters of academic evaluation and recruitment unless a clear violation of statutory or constitutional provisions is shown. No such violation has been established herein. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the writ petitions are founded upon an erroneous interpretation of reservation law, lack

¶178

34

¶179

substantive merit, and do not disclose any ground warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The methodology adopted by the Commission is legally sound, constitutionally aligned and judicially supported. Accordingly, all the captioned writ petitions deserve to be dismissed, and the selection process conducted pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2019 deserves to be upheld in its entirety.

¶180

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at considerable length and with due attention to their elaborate submissions. We have also carefully perused the pleadings on record, the documents annexed to the writ petitions, the counter affidavits and rejoinders filed thereto, as well as the relevant statutory provisions, rules, notifications and judicial precedents cited at the Bar. The entire material placed before this Court has been examined in its proper perspective so as to appreciate the rival contentions in their correct factual and legal backdrop.

¶181

A perusal of the pleadings, documents placed on record, and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties reveals that the controversy raised in all the four writ petitions emanates from a common recruitment process and involves substantially identical questions of constitutional interpretation and application of reservation principles. Since the factual backdrop, the impugned amendment, and the selection

¶182

35

¶183

lists under challenge are interlinked, all the writ petitions were clubbed together, heard analogously, and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶184

The petitioners have called in question the constitutional validity of the III Amendment Notification dated 19.03.2021 issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, whereby Clause 17.6 was inserted in the Rules of Procedure, 2014. Consequentially, the final selection lists dated 26.06.2021, 06.07.2021 and 29.07.2021 for the posts of Assistant Professor in Chemistry, Commerce and Physics respectively have also been assailed. In one petition, the appointment order dated 21.01.2022 has additionally been challenged. The core of the petitioners’ grievance is that the amended clause was allegedly applied retrospectively and resulted in distortion of horizontal reservation for Persons with Disabilities (PwD), thereby infringing Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶185

The recruitment in question was initiated pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2019 dated 18.01.2019 issued under the statutory framework of the Chhattisgarh Higher Education Department (Collegiate Branch Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2019, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. A total of 1384 posts of Assistant Professor were advertised, including posts in Physics (116), Chemistry (150) and Commerce (184), which are the subjects relevant for the present petitions. It is not in dispute

¶186

36

¶187

that the petitioners applied pursuant to the advertisement, participated in the written examination conducted in November 2020, appeared in the interviews, and awaited the declaration of final results.

¶188

During the pendency of the recruitment process, the Commission issued the III Amendment Notification dated 19.03.2021 inserting Clause 17.6 in the Rules of Procedure. The said clause essentially provided a structured mechanism for identification, adjustment and carry forward of horizontal reservation vacancies, particularly in relation to Persons with Disabilities. The petitioners contend that this amendment altered the manner of migration and adjustment across categories and was applied to a recruitment process already underway.

¶189

Before examining the rival contentions, it is apposite to consider the nature and character of the Rules of Procedure framed by the Commission. The Commission is a constitutional body established under Article 315 of the Constitution. Article 320 delineates its functions, which include conducting examinations for appointments to the services of the State. The Rules of Procedure are internal regulatory instruments meant to operationalise the conduct of examinations and preparation of select lists. They do not supplant the statutory Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 but supplement them in matters of implementation. The petitioners have not challenged the Recruitment Rules of 2019;

¶190

37

¶191

rather, they have challenged the procedural amendment.

¶192

It is well settled that a Public Service Commission, being constitutionally entrusted with conducting selections, possesses incidental and ancillary powers to regulate its procedure, provided such regulation does not contravene statutory provisions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baloji Badhavath (Supra) recognised that procedural prescriptions framed by a Commission to effectuate recruitment cannot be lightly interfered with unless they transgress statutory mandates. The petitioners have not demonstrated that Clause 17.6 overrides any provision of the 2019 Recruitment Rules.

¶193

The principal contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that horizontal reservation for Persons with Disabilities has been applied in a manner inconsistent with Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Section 34 mandates that not less than four percent of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities. The jurisprudence governing horizontal reservation is now well crystallised. In Indra Sawhney (Supra) , the Constitution Bench explained the distinction between vertical and horizontal reservations. This principle was further elucidated in Anil Kumar Gupta (Supra) and authoritatively applied in Rajesh Kumar Daria (Supra) .

¶194

More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Federation

¶195

38

¶196

of the Blind (Supra) held that reservation for persons with disabilities must be computed on the basis of total cadre strength and implemented in a manner that ensures effective representation. Subsequently, in Sourav Yadav (Supra) , the Court reiterated the doctrine of interlocking reservations and clarified the sequencing principle; first fill open merit seats; thereafter fill vertical reserved categories; and finally adjust horizontal reservations within each vertical category.

¶197

Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid binding precedents, the action of the Commission does not suffer from illegality. The material placed on record demonstrates that the Commission followed a three-layered methodology i.e., first applying vertical reservations as per the Recruitment Rules; second adjusting horizontal reservation for women within each vertical category; and third interlocking horizontal reservation for Persons with Disabilities across categories proportionately. The petitioners’ grievance essentially arises from the carry-forward mechanism when eligible PwD candidates were not available to the full extent of notified vacancies. However, Section 34(2) of the 2016 Act expressly contemplates carry forward of unfilled vacancies. The proportional adjustment adopted by the Commission ensured that no single vertical category was disproportionately affected.

¶198

The argument that Clause 17.6 was applied retrospectively and thereby altered the rules of the game is also devoid of merit. The

¶199

39

¶200

selection criteria, eligibility conditions, written examination scheme and interview structure remained unchanged. Clause 17.6 merely clarified the method of adjustment of horizontal reservation and carry forward in conformity with statutory mandate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 has held that a candidate who participates in a selection process without demur cannot, after being unsuccessful, turn around and challenge the procedure. It was held as under :

¶201

“9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the

¶202

40

¶203

process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644 : AIR 1986 SC 1043] it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.”

¶204

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Airport Authority of India and Others Vs. Sham Krishna B and Others , reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 87 has held as under :

¶205

“ 30 . There are mainly two-fold purposes of maintaining reservation register or roster. Firstly, to ascertain that any given point of time, the number of employees in a cadre belonging to a particular category (SC, ST and OBC) does not exceed their lawful quota in the cadre. The second purpose is to determine the number of posts in all the categories (UR, SC, ST and OBC) which is vacant for future recruitments. Therefore, the reservation roster is not used to make selections during the recruitment process, but only to define number of vacant posts for advertising for recruitment. However, since reservation register or roster defines the quota available for recruitment, it can be used to decide who deserves selection and who does not deserve selection on account of a concerned category quota

¶206

41

¶207

being filled by more meritorious candidates in the category available for the concerned candidate.

¶208

31 . The Appellant Authority has justified its stand in shifting reserve category candidates towards the list of unreserved category candidates as they have obtained marks more than the candidates belonging to unreserved category or at par with the candidates belonging to unreserved category candidates.

¶209

32 . The issue in respect of migration of reserved category candidates who has not availed any concession or relaxation has been considered in detailed by this Court in Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav in Civil Appeal No. 14112 of 2024 decided on 19.12.2025, wherein this Court after taking into account all the judgments on the subject has held that a candidate belonging to reserve category who has scored higher marks than the cut off marks for the General Category candidates has to be treated as having qualified against an open unreserved vacant post. This Court in the aforesaid case in paragraph 58 to 74 as held as under:

¶210

We begin our observations, analysis and ruling on migration by refreshing our memory with certain well-established principles in relation to affirmative action under our Constitution. It is well-settled that the concept of ‘equality before law’ ingrained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India contemplates, inter alia, elimination of inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities not only amongst

¶211

42

¶212

individuals but also amongst groups of people and is aimed at securing the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the society and to protect them from social injustice and exploitation. The equal protection clause urges affirmative action for those who are placed unequally. Affirmative action is also recognised by Article 16. Then again, Article 335 thereof provides for special consideration in the matter of claims of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes for public employment. The entire field of law relating to affirmative action is so well occupied by authoritative decisions that we consider it unnecessary to burden this judgment by referring to the same. What particularly concerns us in these appeals is not a sterile invocation of formal legal equality, but an assessment of the realworld consequences flowing from the principle of equality. The focus, therefore, must be on outcomes as much as on rules.

¶213

Indra Sawhney (supra) explained the principles of reservation. Hon'ble B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. (as His Lordship then was) declared, inter alia, that where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a backward class, the candidates in this category may compete for open or general category and that if they are appointed on merit in the open or general category, their number

¶214

43

¶215

will not be counted against the backward class category and, as such, it cannot be considered that the vertical reservations have been filled up to the extent candidates of this category have migrated to the open category on merit.

¶216

In Saurav Yadav (supra), Hon'ble S. Ravindra Bhat, J. in His Lordship's supplementing opinion outlined the features of vertical and horizontal reservation as follows:

¶217

The features of vertical reservations are:

¶218

59.1. They cannot be filled by the open category, or categories of candidates other than those specified and have to be filled by candidates of the social category concerned only (SC/ST/OBC).

¶219

59.2. Mobility (“migration”) from the reserved (specified category) to the unreserved (open category) slot is possible, based on meritorious performance.

¶220

59.3. In case of migration from reserved to open category, the vacancy in the reserved category should be filled by another person from the same specified category, lower in rank.

¶221

59.4. If the vacancies cannot be filled by the specified categories due to shortfall of candidates, the vacancies are to be “carried forward” or dealt with appropriately by rules.

¶222

44

¶223

Horizontal reservations on the other hand, by their nature, are not inviolate pools or carved in stone. They are premised on their overlaps and are “interlocking” reservations. As a sequel, they are to be calculated concurrently and along with the inviolate “vertical” (or “social”) reservation quotas, by application of the various steps laid out with clarity in para 21.3 of Lalit, J.'s judgment. They cannot be carried forward. The first rule that applies to filling horizontal reservation quotas is one of adjustment i.e. examining whether on merit any of the horizontal categories are adjusted in the merit list in the open category, and then, in the quota for such horizontal category within the particular specified/social reservation.

¶224

The open category is not a “quota”, but rather available to all women and men alike. …”.

¶225

The above observations were followed by His Lordship's observation, found almost at the end of the opinion, that the “open category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type is available to her or him.”. The same have a profound meaning, and needs to be translated into action without being unnecessarily bothered by a term like ‘migration’.

¶226

Drawing inspiration from the

¶227

45

¶228

guiding light provided by Indra Sawhney (supra) and Saurav Yadav (supra), we hold that the word ‘open’ connotes nothing but ‘open’, meaning thereby that vacant posts which are sought to be filled by earmarking it as ‘open’ do not fall in any category. One does find categories like ‘open’ or ‘unreserved’ or ‘general’ being widely used in course of recruitment drives but they are meant to signify the open/unreserved vacant posts on which any suitable candidate can be appointed, regardless of the caste/tribe/class/gender of such candidate. For all intents and purposes, the vacancies on posts which are notified/advertised as open or unreserved or general, as the terms suggest, are not reserved for any caste/tribe/class/gender and are, thus, open to all notwithstanding that a cross-section of society can also compete for appointment on vacant posts which are ‘reserved’ - vertical or horizontal - as mentioned in the notification/advertisement.

¶229

Now, turning to the dictionary meaning of the word ‘migration’, what we find is that the same typically refers to the act of moving from one place to another, often involving a change of residence or location. This can apply to various contexts like human migration, animal migration, data migration, etc. In general, migration involves a change of location, often with the

¶230

46

¶231

intention of settling or establishing a new presence in the new location.

¶232

In the context of reservation in public employment, the word ‘migration’ refers to a candidate claiming benefits or entitlements. The word is used in, at least, two scenarios.

¶233

65 . Scenario 1 is “Inter-State Reservation Migration” envisaging a portability of reservation benefits. Since we are not concerned with a scenario 1 case, we make no observation except noting two decisions of this Court. The first is Action Committee v. Union of India3 where it has been held by a Constitution Bench that a person belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in relation to his original State, of which he is a permanent or ordinary resident, cannot be deemed to be so in relation to any other State on his migration to that State for the purpose of employment, education, etc. The second is Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Sanjay Kumar Singh holding that if a person certified as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in one State migrates to another State, then he would not be entitled to the benefit available to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in the State to which he has migrated unless he belongs to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in that State.

¶234

47

¶235

Scenario 2, with which we are concerned, occurs when there is a “Merit Induced Shift”. Although this shift is largely referred to as migration, we find in Saurav Yadav (supra) Hon'ble Ravindra Bhat, J. explaining the term as adjustment of a reserve category candidate in the unreserved category based on his/her merit.

¶236

Here, we do not see reason to agree with Mr. Gupta that any shift or adjustment, or even migration as he contends, as such is required where a candidate, who is also otherwise entitled to compete and be selected for a reserved vacant post, happens to outscore, outperform and outshine not only reserved candidates but also general candidates and figures at the top of the list of successful candidates prepared after a qualifying/preliminary examination (for screening/shortlisting) solely by dint of the marks secured by him/her in such examination (without availing any concession/relaxation) thereby entitling him/her to participate in the second tier of a further suitability test. Such a meritorious candidate, notwithstanding that he/she belongs to a reserved category, be it Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class, must of necessity (arising out of the concept of equality before law and equal protection of the laws in Article 14, and extended to Article 16 in

¶237

48

¶238

matters of public employment) be treated as a candidate who has competed for the ‘unreserved’ category and not the ‘reserved’ category, thereby obviating the need for any ‘migration’ or, so to say, shift or adjustment.

¶239

68 . In a two-tier process, as in the present case, we wish to illustrate how, generally, the exercise of screening/short-listing of candidates (belonging to General/Open, Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class, etc., categories) with five times the number of vacancies in each category, who would literally be gaining the ‘pass’ to reach the second tier to participate in the typewriting test on computer can be conducted without complaints of unfairness and nontransparency in the process. Say, 100 vacancies in the General/Open category are notified and a similar number for the reserved categories is also notified. Five times the number of vacancies would mean not more than 500 candidates can be screened/shortlisted for the General/Open category. At the outset, based on the performance of the candidates who take the written test, the recruiting authority has to screen/short-list the candidates to be included in the General/Open category and subsequently for reserved categories. Judicial notice can be taken that this exercise is often facilitated by preparing a

¶240

49

¶241

broadsheet, also called a short-list, containing names of all the candidates (who acquit themselves successfully in the written test). For the preparation of the short-list for the General/Open category, candidates are first arranged strictly in descending order of merit and, thereafter, candidates falling short of the cutoff for such category figure in descending order of merit according to their respective reservation category in separate short-lists. If any candidate, say ‘C’, being the member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class, outscores the candidates not belonging to any reserved category in the written test, he/she shall be included in the short-list for the General/Open category. At this stage, there is no question of any migration; merit is the only criterion amongst all candidates who have to be seen as belonging to General/Open category. Once ‘C’ gains the ‘pass’ for the secondtier process and qualifies in the typewriting test on computer obtaining marks in excess of the requisite marks, his/her marks obtained in such test would be required to be added to the marks obtained in the written test. Once again, a broad-sheet has to be prepared based on cumulative scores containing names of all the candidates in order of highest to lowest marks with the more meritorious candidates, obviously, figuring at the top. Preparation of

¶242

50

¶243

this broad-sheet is a handy tool for drawing up the final merit list of candidates. From the broad-sheet, names of candidates drawn up in order of merit with candidates ranked according to their marks in descending order, commonly called the Combined Merit List, ought to reflect where each one of the aspiring candidates stand on merit. If ‘C’ figures within the first 100 candidates in order of merit, i.e., the number of vacant posts for the General/Open category, he/she shall be counted as a General/Open candidate for the purpose of appointment. Here too, there is no question of migration for the reason we have already indicated above, i.e., merit being the only criterion and not caste/tribe/gender, etc. If ‘C’ does not figure in the first 100 candidates and whilst preparing the merit list of reserved category candidates it is found that he/she figures within the specified number of vacancies in the reserved category to which he/she belongs and which can be filled up by appointing him/her, he/she ought to be counted as a candidate of such reserved category for appointment. If ‘C’ fails to figure in the merit list for the reserved category list as well, question of his/her appointment would not arise.

¶244

We, however, sound a note of caution that our observations above are relatable to the selection process of the kind under

¶245

51

¶246

consideration. It has not been shown with reference to the recruitment rules that the same ordain otherwise. If, at all, the recruitment rules governing any selection process ordain otherwise than what is observed above, obviously the recruitment rules would have precedence subject to the condition that such rule passes the test of constitutionality.

¶247

Reverting to the appeals under consideration, we see no reason to say that there has been a ‘migration’, in the sense of either an adjustment or a shift being made. At the time of screening/short-listing of candidates based on their performance in the qualifying examination and even thereafter, initially all the aspiring candidates including the reserved candidates should be seen as General/Open candidates. If such a candidate, notwithstanding that he/she belongs to a reserved category maintains excellence in standard even in the second tier of examination (typewriting test, in this case), he/she would cease to be treated as a candidate belonging to any category and entitled to treatment as a candidate seeking appointment on a vacant post which is categorised as General/Open. Should there be a decline in performance in the second tier test pushing out the candidate from the zone of consideration for appointment on posts which are open or

¶248

52

¶249

unreserved or general but not beyond the zone for the reserved vacant posts, it is necessary to regard him/her as a candidate belonging to the reserved category to which he/she belongs, thereby paving the way for him/her to stake a claim for consideration for appointment on an appropriate reserved vacant post.

¶250

In the milieu of facts, none of the petitioning candidates has been shown to have availed of any concession/relaxation. No law - either rule or executive instruction - has been shown which prevented the High Court from treating the reserved candidates as General/Open candidates once it transpired that they outshone the latter. Question of any migration or deriving twin benefits of migration did not and could not arise in the circumstances.

¶251

If we accept the proposition advanced by the appellants, it would not only have a detrimental impact on candidates from the disadvantaged sections but also erode the principles enshrined in the Constitution.

¶252

Now, turning to Chattar Singh (supra) which was heavily relied on by the appellants, we have to record that the ratio laid down therein must be appreciated in its proper context. In that case, the scheme of examination clearly provided that the marks obtained in the preliminary examination would not be considered for the

¶253

53

¶254

determination of final merit. The rule therein, appearing from paragraph 5 of the decision, read as follows:

¶255

Rule 13 of the Rules prescribes the mode of conducting preliminary as well as Main Examination. It reads as under:

¶256

“13. Scheme of Examination, personality and viva voce test.— The competitive examination shall be conducted by the Commission in two stages, i.e., Preliminary Examination and Main Examination as per the scheme specified in Schedule III. The marks obtained in the Preliminary Examination by the candidates, who are declared qualified for admission to the Main Examination will not be counted for determining their final order of merit…”

¶257

(emphasis ours)

¶258

It is in view of this rule that this Court held that the claim of reserved category candidates to be accommodated in the open category on the basis of marks obtained will be determined at the final stage. We find no reason to differ from that principle. However, the facts of the present case stand on a distinct footing. First, the main written examination here is not a mere preliminary/screening test but an integral and substantive component of the selection process, carrying 300 marks out of a total of 400 - constituting 75% of the final

¶259

54

¶260

assessment. Its weight and determinative value distinguish it from the limited preliminary stage examination contemplated in Chattar Singh (supra), thereby rendering that ratio inapplicable to the present factual matrix. Secondly, the inclusion of a reserved category candidate in the open merit list at the stage of shortlisting cannot be equated with ‘migration’, for no benefit or concession of reservation is availed. Such inclusion is purely merit-based and, therefore, stands on a plane distinct from the concept of ‘migration’ as addressed in Chattar Singh (supra).

¶261

Before we part, we find it necessary to enter a caveat. A situation could arise, if the aforesaid principles were applied, of a reserved category candidate based on his/her performance outshining General/Open candidates and figuring in the General merit list, but finding the options to be limited. He/she may, as a consequence of being counted as a General candidate, lose out on a preferred service or a preferred post because the same is reserved for a reserved category candidate. Should such an eventuality occur, the same is bound to breed dissatisfaction, disappointment and displeasure which are not in the interests of public service. After all, fairness matters even in public employment. Where adjustment

¶262

55

¶263

against the unreserved category would result in a more meritorious reserved category candidate being displaced in favour of a less meritorious candidate within the same category for a preferred service or a preferred post within the reserved quota, the former must be permitted to be considered against the service/post in the reserved quota. This would ensure merit being preserved both across categories and within them, and that reservation functions as a means of inclusion rather than an instrument of disadvantage. The approach adopted by us in holding so is consistent with the view expressed by this Court, encapsulated in paragraph 24.1 of Alok Kumar Pandit (supra). We may also mention here that prior to the view expressed in Alok Kumar Pandit (supra), the High Court at Calcutta in a somewhat like situation took the same view in Mukul Biswas v. State of West Bengal”.

¶264

33 . In the considered opinion of this Court, the controversy involved in the present case is no longer res integra. It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate belonging to reserve category who has scored marks higher than the cut off marks for the General Category is to be treated as having qualified against an open or unreserved vacant post. In the present case, no concession or relaxation was extended to the reserve category candidates who have been appointed on their own merit against the

¶265

56

¶266

posts meant for the General Category candidates as they have scored more marks than the General Category candidates in the selection process. The facts of the case further makes it clear that all the vacancies notified for unreserved category i.e. 122 posts were filled up based upon the marks scored by candidates in the process of selection on their own merit and, therefore, the Appellant Authority were justified in migrating the candidates belonging to reserve category to the unreserved list on the basis of their own merit as they have scored higher marks than the General category candidates.”

¶267

The petitioners have painstakingly placed numerical charts to contend that certain Unreserved or OBC vacancies remained unfilled while PwD candidates from other vertical categories were adjusted. However, such adjustments are inherent in the doctrine of horizontal reservation. As clarified in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) , horizontal reservation cuts across vertical categories and adjustments are to be made by deleting corresponding candidates from the bottom of the concerned vertical list. The mere fact that some vacancies appear unfilled at an intermediate stage does not establish distortion unless it is shown that the final vertical percentages were breached. No such breach has been demonstrated.

¶268

The contention that reservation for PwD must be calculated only on cadre strength and not on advertised vacancies is

¶269

57

¶270

misconceived in the present factual context. The cadre strength was 3855 posts; however, the recruitment was confined to 1384 advertised vacancies. The Commission ensured that the total reservation for PwD within the cadre did not fall below the statutory minimum and proportionately adjusted the current recruitment to meet backlog and current reservation requirements. This approach is consistent with the mandate in National Federation of the Blind (supra) .

¶271

The grievance regarding non-publication of detailed merit lists and waiting lists also does not warrant interference. The record indicates that interim orders in connected matters required certain posts to be kept vacant, and publication of a comprehensive merit list at that stage could have led to complications affecting those proceedings. Moreover, the petitioners have not demonstrated prejudice by establishing that they secured higher marks than the last selected candidate in the relevant adjusted category. Transparency cannot be equated with a right to invalidate a selection otherwise conducted in accordance with law.

¶272

The challenge to individual appointments in W.P.S. No. 3636/2022 is entirely consequential. Once the selection list withstands judicial scrutiny, the appointment order issued pursuant thereto cannot be independently assailed. The petitioners have not established mala fides, arbitrariness or violation of statutory provisions in the issuance of appointment orders.

¶273

58

¶274

It is trite that judicial review in matters of public recruitment is limited. Courts do not sit as appellate authorities over selection bodies. Interference is warranted only when there is patent illegality, violation of statutory rules, or demonstrable arbitrariness infringing Articles 14 and 16. The present case discloses no such infirmity.

¶275

The entire edifice of the petitioners’ case rests upon a misapprehension of how horizontal reservation operates in conjunction with vertical reservation. The Commission has adhered to the interlocking principle, preserved the vertical reservation matrix, implemented carry forward in accordance with statutory prescription, and ensured compliance with constitutional norms. The amendment introducing Clause 17.6 cannot be said to be ultra vires Articles 309 or 320, as it merely regulates procedural aspects of implementation without altering substantive recruitment rules.

¶276

In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners have failed to establish that any candidate less meritorious within the same adjusted category has been selected in preference to them, or that the constitutional scheme of reservation has been violated. The grievance is essentially speculative and founded upon an erroneous interpretation of binding precedents.

¶277

For all the reasons aforesaid, this Court holds that the III Amendment Notification dated 19.03.2021 inserting Clause 17.6

¶278

59

¶279

in the Rules of Procedure, 2014 is constitutionally valid; the final selection lists dated 26.06.2021, 06.07.2021 and 29.07.2021 for the subjects of Chemistry, Commerce and Physics respectively have been prepared in accordance with law; and the consequential appointment order dated 21.01.2022 does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

¶280

Consequently, all four writ petitions, namely W.P.S. No. 5102/2021, W.P.S. No. 5117/2021, W.P.S. No. 5350/2021 and W.P.S. No. 3636/2022, are hereby dismissed .

¶281

No order as to costs.

¶282

Sd/Sd/-

¶283

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge

¶284

Shayna

¶285

The date when the judgment is reserved	The date when the judgment is pronounced	The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website
		Operative Full
10.02.2026	13.03.2026	13.03.2026 13.03.2026

¶286

60

¶287

Head Note

¶288

Judicial review in matters of public recruitment is limited and courts do not sit as appellate authorities over the decisions of selection bodies. Where the Commission has correctly applied the interlocking principle of horizontal and vertical reservations along with the carry-forward rule, the selection process cannot be faulted. The amendment introducing Clause 17.6 being procedural in nature cannot be held ultra vires Articles 309 or 320.

Khilesh Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khilesh Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Gandhi (Died) through Legal Heirs- Vs Batuk Rai Diwan

Kanchan Sonwani Minor Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Shobhit @ Choti Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Makhan Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pooja Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nand Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh