Gopal Singh Vs the Chairman

¶1

Digitally signed YOGESH by YOGESHTIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.01.14 18:43:36 +0530

1

2026:CGHC:2101

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 5730 of 2023

¶7

Gopal Singh S/o Shri Vishram Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 08 Badepara Kunwapani, North Bastar Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - The Chairman Selection Committee Office of District And Sessions Judge, North Bastar Kanker District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Amrotina Tandiya W/o Shri Kewal Ram Tandiya, R/o Village Tuegahan Saliyapara Post Hatkarra District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Ku. Digeshwari D/o Shri Siyaram R/o Village Seleganv Post Seleganv, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

(Cause-title t	... Respondents aken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner	: Ms. Prachi Diwan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No.1	: Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate (through VC) along with Mr. Karunendra Narayan Singh, Advocate

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board

¶14

13.01.2026

¶15

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following relief(s):-

¶16

“ 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to produce

¶17

2

¶18

entire records of the selection process of the post of sweeper and also in respect of petitioner's appointment for the post Sweeper.

¶19

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the select list dated 07/08/2023 issued by the respondent authorities and also be pleased to quash the appointment order dated 08.08.2023 issued in favour of the respondent no. 2 and 3.

¶20

10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to respondent authorities to issue appointment order of petitioner regarding post of Sweeper as early as possible.

¶21

10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s) as deemed fit and necessary by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and the circumstances of the case.

¶22

10.5 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

¶23

pleased to grant cost of present petition. ”

¶24

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire selection process adopted by the respondent authorities is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.02.2023, the petitioner applied for the post of Sweeper under the Scheduled Caste category and secured first rank in the merit list, thereby establishing his superior merit and eligibility.

¶25

3

¶26

3. Learned counsel further submits that no marks, benchmarks, or evaluation criteria were prescribed for the skill test in the advertisement, and after the publication of the merit list, the respondent authorities could not have lawfully displaced the petitioner from the select list without assigning any reasons or disclosing the basis of such exclusion. The subsequent act of shifting the petitioner from the select list to the waiting list is therefore ex facie arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law.

¶27

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner duly appeared in the skill test and was never informed of any deficiency, disqualification, or adverse assessment. Despite this, the final select list was published excluding the petitioner, while respondents No. 2 and 3, who were lower in merit, were granted appointment. Such action amounts to changing the rules of the game after the game had begun, which is impermissible in law. He submits that the petitioner raised objections before the respondent authorities immediately upon publication of the final select list; however, the same were ignored without passing any speaking order or granting an opportunity of hearing, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is therefore submitted that the impugned select list dated 07.08.2023 and appointment order dated 08.08.2023 deserve to be quashed and set aside, and the respondent authorities be directed to consider the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with merit and the terms of the advertisement.

¶28

4

¶29

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the entire selection process has been conducted strictly in accordance with the advertisement dated 04.02.2023. It is submitted that the advertisement clearly provided that the merit list based on Class-V marks was only for the purpose of shortlisting candidates for the skill test, whereas the final selection was to be made exclusively on the basis of marks obtained in the skill test. He further submits that the petitioner was duly called for the skill test on the basis of his academic merit and participated in the same without any protest or demur. However, the petitioner secured lesser marks in the skill test than respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were accordingly selected. Hence, placement of the petitioner in the waiting list is purely merit-based and neither arbitrary nor illegal.

¶30

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that having participated in the entire selection process without objection and having been declared unsuccessful, the petitioner cannot now turn around and challenge the same, as such conduct is impermissible in law. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, (2023) 17 SCC 147 , wherein it has been held that a candidate cannot approbate and reprobate simultaneously. It is therefore submitted that no

¶31

5

¶32

illegality, arbitrariness, or violation of constitutional rights is made out and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition.

¶34

8. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 sought time to file certain documents relating to the skill test, and the copies thereof have been taken on record.

¶35

9. From a perusal of the documents placed on record by respondent No.1, particularly the merit list prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the skill test for the post of Sweeper (Contingent) – Reserved Category, it clearly transpires that the selection was made strictly on the basis of performance in the skill test, as contemplated under the advertisement.

¶36

10. The said merit list reveals that respondent No.2 secured 42 marks, respondent No.3 secured 39 marks, whereas the petitioner has secured only 27 marks in the skill test. Thus, on comparative evaluation, the petitioner has admittedly obtained lesser marks than respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who stood higher in merit and were accordingly selected.

¶37

11. In view of the aforesaid factual position, the contention of the petitioner that he was arbitrarily excluded from selection despite being meritorious is belied by the record itself. The petitioner was initially shortlisted on the basis of Class-V marks only for the

¶38

6

¶39

limited purpose of appearing in the skill test, and the final selection was admittedly dependent solely upon the marks obtained in the skill test. No material irregularity, arbitrariness, or illegality is discernible in the selection process.

¶40

12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court finds no infirmity in the action of the respondent authorities warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

¶41

13. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶44

Yogesh

Gopal Singh v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Singh v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Somani Vs Bajaj Electricals Limited

Basant Kumar Meshram Vs Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited

Yashwant Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramayan Lal Dubey Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Sharad Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harbansh Singh ( Nanhu Bhai ) Vs Returning Officer, Local Election