1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7602 of 2023 1 - Lokeshwar Dewangan S/o Shri A. R. Dewangan Aged About 31 Years R/o Shankarpur, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. C. J. K. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 02/01/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the advertisement dated 04.05.2023 (Annexure P-6) issued for the post of Assistant Teacher. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science) English Medium and issue appointment order in compliance to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 01.05.2023. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to extend the validity of the select list in compliance to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 01.05.2023. 10.4. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate. 10.5. Cost of the petition.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.03.2019 issued for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Science), English Medium, the petitioner duly applied and was selected on merit, as reflected in the result published by the respondents. Despite being placed in the select list, no appointment order was issued to the petitioner. In the meantime, this Court, in WP(C) No. 591/2012 and connected matters, struck down the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Janjatiyon aur Anya Pichhare Vargon ke Liye Arakshan) (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2011 and the amended Rules, 2012, against which the State of Chhattisgarh preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, resulting in withholding of the entire recruitment process in the State. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in SLP (C) No. 19668/2022, by interim order dated 01.05.2023, permitted the State to proceed with the selection process and make appointments, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings, pursuant to which the General Administration Department issued a notification dated 03.05.2023. The said interim order had the effect of extending the validity of the select list so as to enable completion of the stalled selection process. The petitioner had already been issued a provisional allotment letter dated 3 12.08.2022 for the post of Assistant Teacher; however, despite the aforesaid directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and availability of vacancies, the respondent authorities failed to issue appointment orders and instead issued a fresh advertisement dated 04.05.2023. Earlier also, the validity of the select list had been extended vide notification dated 30.03.2022 on account of pending litigation. Even thereafter, the respondents have not complied with the interim directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereby depriving the petitioner of appointment, who has now become over-age and is unable to participate in the fresh recruitment process, despite vacancies still being available for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science), English Medium. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities is wholly illegal, arbitrary and tainted with mala fides. It is contended that despite clear and categorical observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 01.05.2023, permitting the State to proceed with the selection process and make appointments, the respondents have failed to conclude the withheld selection process by issuing appointment orders to the eligible and selected candidates, including the petitioner. Instead of complying with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent authorities have acted in a patently arbitrary manner by issuing a fresh advertisement, which is not only illegal but also directly contrary to the spirit and mandate of the order dated 01.05.2023. Such action has the effect of unlawfully curtailing and defeating the accrued and legitimate rights of the petitioner, whose candidature was already under consideration pursuant to the earlier selection process. Learned 4 counsel further submits that on an earlier occasion also, the respondent No.2 had extended the validity of the select list vide notification dated 30.03.2022 owing to pendency of judicial proceedings, and therefore, there was no justification for not extending the validity of the select list in the present case, especially in view of the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is urged that the non-issuance of the appointment order has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner, who has now become over-age and has been rendered ineligible to participate in the fresh recruitment process, despite the availability of vacancies. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondent authorities were duty bound to strictly comply with and give full effect to the observations and directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and their failure to do so warrants interference by this Court. 4. Learned State Counsel, opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the writ petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is contended that although the petitioner participated pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.03.2019 and was placed in the merit list, mere inclusion in a select list does not confer any indefeasible or vested right to appointment, which is always subject to availability of vacancies and subsistence of a valid select/merit list. Learned State counsel submits that the recruitment process suffered multiple interruptions on account of the COVID-19 pandemic, judicial proceedings and interim stay orders, and though the validity of the merit list was extended from time to time as a matter of policy, the same finally expired on 31.03.2023, prior to the interim order dated 01.05.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.19668/2022. It is further submitted that 5 the interim order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court only permitted the State to proceed with selection and appointments in accordance with law and did not automatically revive or extend an already expired merit list. Since the reservation provisions under which the original advertisement was issued were declared unconstitutional by this Court on 19.09.2022 and the merit list had lost its validity, no further appointments could legally be made pursuant thereto. Learned State Counsel thus submits that the decision of the State to initiate a fresh recruitment process by issuing the impugned advertisement was taken in administrative exigency to meet the acute shortage of teachers and is lawful, justified and free from arbitrariness, warranting dismissal of the present petition. 5. This Court has carefully considered the pleadings on record, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the documents relied upon. 6. The reliefs sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition, namely quashment of the advertisement dated 04.05.2023, a direction for issuance of appointment order pursuant to the interim order dated 01.05.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and extension of the validity of the select list, are identical in substance to the reliefs which were sought and adjudicated upon by this Court in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.S. No. 3474 of 2023 (Prem Lal Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), decided vide common order dated 20.02.2025. 7. From perusal of the said earlier order dated 20.02.2025, it is manifest that this Court has already examined in detail the entire recruitment process initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.03.2019, the 6 effect of multiple rounds of counselling, extension of validity of the merit list from time to time, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, pendency of judicial proceedings and the interim order dated 01.05.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.19668/2022. This Court, after considering authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has categorically held that mere selection or placement in a select list, even after verification of documents, does not confer any indefeasible or vested right to appointment and that failure to secure the prescribed cut-off marks during counselling disentitles a candidate from claiming appointment, even if vacancies remain unfilled. 8. The contention of the petitioner that the interim order dated 01.05.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court automatically extended the validity of the select list and created an enforceable right to appointment, stands squarely answered in the earlier common order. This Court has already held that the interim order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court merely permitted the State to proceed with the selection process and make appointments in accordance with law and subject to the final outcome of the SLP, and that it did not revive or extend an already expired merit list nor did it confer a vested right of appointment upon candidates whose candidature could not fructify due to non-fulfilment of cut-off criteria or expiry of the select list. In the earlier decision dated 20.02.2025, this Court has further held that when posts remained vacant even after six rounds of counselling, the respondent authorities were justified in carrying forward such posts and issuing a fresh advertisement dated 04.05.2023, and that such action 7 could not be termed arbitrary, illegal or contrary to law. The issuance of a fresh advertisement was found to be a policy decision taken in administrative exigency to meet the requirement of teachers and was held not to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the present case, the petitioner stands on the same footing as the petitioners in the earlier batch of writ petitions. No distinguishing facts or circumstances have been brought on record which would persuade this Court to take a view different from the one already taken in the common order dated 20.02.2025. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner are substantially the same which have already been considered and rejected by this Court. 10. In view of the binding nature of the earlier order this Court in an identical set of facts and issues, and applying the same reasoning and principles, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. The petitioner has failed to establish any legal right for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing appointment or for quashment of the fresh advertisement dated 04.05.2023. 11. Accordingly, in the light of order dated 20.02.2025 passed in W.P.S. No. 3474 of 2023 and connected matters, the present writ petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE