1 2025:CGHC:16660-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 205 of 2025 The Registrar General High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bodri, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Siddharth Pandey S/o Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey Aged About 31 Years R/o 27 Kholi, Vikas Nagar, PS Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Law And Legislative Affairs Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary, Near Bhagat Singh Square, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Himanshu Panda Candidate At Serial No. 12 In Selection List Through The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Near Bhagat Singh Square, Civil Lines, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Richa Yadav Candidate At Serial No. 32 In Selection List Through The Chattisgarh Public Service Commission, Near Bhagar Singh Square, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 6 - Palak Singhai Candidate At Serical No. 1 In Waiting List Through The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Near Bhagat Singh Square, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Khushboo Jain Candidate At Serial No. 2 In Waiting List Through The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Near Bhagat Singh Square, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Sakshi Sharma Candidate At Serial No. 3 In Waiting List Through The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Near Bhagat Singh Square, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State For Respondent No.3 : : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Adv. General Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09/04/2025 Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. Heard Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent and Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. The appellant/Registrar General has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 4812 of 2021 by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the petitions with a direction to the respondents to correct 3 the selection list within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and forwarded it to the High Court for taking suitable action regarding appointment of candidates on the post of Civil Judge Junior Division within further 6 weeks from the date of communication of revised selection list/waiting list. 3. Facts of the case in brief, as per the pleadings made by the writ petitioners/respondents No.1 and 8 herein before the learned Single Judge are that : (i) The petitioner in WP(S) No. 4812/2021 has prayed for quashing of the final merit list dated 14.08.2021 (Annexure P/6) prepared by the respondent Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission for appointment of Civil Judge Lower Division and also seeks direction for issuance of fresh merit list, to place the petitioner at serial No. 12 in place of the respondent No. 3 Himanshu Panda in the merit list, allow him to join the post of Civil Judge Lower Division. (ii) The petitioner in WP(S) No. 5879/2021 has prayed for quashing of the advertisement dated 05.02.2020 (Annexure P/1) for appointment of Civil Judge (Lower Division) issued by the respondent Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, to quash the final merit list dated 14.08.2021 (Annexure P/6) prepared by the respondent Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission for appointment of Civil Judge Lower Division and also seeks direction for issuance of fresh merit list. (iii) An advertisement was issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission on 05.02.2020 for selection to the post of Civil Judge (Entry Level) in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2006 4 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules 2006’).There were total 32 posts advertised of which 13 posts were nuder the unreserved category. Out of the said 13 posts, 3 posts were reserved for women candidates. The scheme of selection required for the candidates was to participate in the preliminary examination and then in written examination and thereafter the shortlisted candidates based upon merit position in the written examination shall be called for viva voce. After the viva-voce, based on the cumulative marks of the candidates secured it the written examination and viva-voce, a select list was to be prepared by the Chharttisgarh Public Service commission and thereafter the appointments were to be made. (iv) The written examination was conducted wherein the petitioner secured competitive marks and was accordingly permitted to participate in the interview. Based on the cumulative marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination as well as interview, 6 candidates secured equal marks ie. 86 marks. In such an event where multiple candidates secure equal marks Rule 5B(3) of the Rules, 2006 provide that preference is to be given to the candidate who is elder in age. However, after the preparation of final select list as well as the waiting list, it was not adhered to Rule 5B(3) of the Rules 2006 and on the contrary applied their owner Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure Rules 2014. (v) Being aggrieved by the above, the petitioner preferred the writ petition challenging the select list as prepared by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission with a prayer seeking direction from this Court that he be placed at Serial No. 12 in the select list in place of respondent No.3 in the writ petition and thereafter permit him to give his 5 joining. There was another writ petition preferred by Sakshi Sharma challenging the select list. Both the petitions were heard analogously. This Court after hearing the matter had arrived to a conclusion vide its order dated 02.01.2025 that since the selection process was being conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, it was the responsibility of the Commission to defend its action. It further held that Rules 2006 framed under Proviso to Article 309 read with Article 234 of the Constitution of India ought to have been applied instead of the Rules of Procedure 2014 framed by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission. (vi) The learned Single Bench issued a direction directing the High Court for taking suitable action regarding appointment of candidates within further 6 weeks from the date of communication of revised select list/waiting list depriving the High Court form taking necessary administrative steps as are required before making appointment to the post of Civil judge Junior Division. 4. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 02.01.2025, has allowed the petitions filed by the writ petitioners/respondents No. 1 & 8 herein which reads as under: “27.The record of the case shows that Palak Singhai who was placed at Unreserved Waiting List-1 has been appointed as Civil Judge on 01.03.2023 and Khushboo Jain who was in the Unreserved Waiting List 2 has already been selected in the State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, this Court is not considering the facts whether the Khushboo Jain was rightly placed in the selection list/waiting list issued by the PSC, but this Court has to answer whether placing Palak Singhai 6 whose date of birth is 11.07.1995 is legally correct or not. The petitioner Sakshi Sharma in WP(S) No. 5879/2021 who was Unreserved Waiting List-3 and her date of birth is 14.12.1993 and she was elder to respondent No. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 should have been placed at waiting list No. 1. So far as petitioner Siddharth Pandey in WP(S) No. 4812/2021 is concerned, his date of birth is 27.05.1994 he should be placed in Unreserved Waiting List-2 as he is elder to respondent No. 3, 5, 6 and 7, as such the issuance of selection list/waiting list so far as petitioners are concerned suffers from illegality which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to correct the selection list within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and forwarded it to the High Court for taking suitable action regarding appointment of candidates on the post of Civil Judge Junior Division within further 6 weeks from the date of communication of revised selection list/waiting list. 28. With aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions are allowed.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/Registrar General submits that the Rules of 2006 have been framed under the exercise of its power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the relevant rule is Rule 5 (1) of Rule 2006 which reads as under: “5. Method of Recruitment and Appointment- (1) All appointments to category (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 3 shall be made by the Governor by direct recruitment in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission on selection: 7 Provided that the procedure and curriculum for holding the examination for the selection of candidates shall be prescribed by the Commission in consultation with the High Court and the State Government, asper Schedule-1. Provided also that for direct recruitment a candidate belonging to unreserved category has to secure minimum 33% marks in the viva-voce and those belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backwar Classes shall be required to secure minimum 25% marks in the viva-voce.” 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that after revising the selection list, the matter was sent to the High Court which was further sent to the State Government referring to Rule 5(1) of Rule 2006 and directing the State Government that they are free to take action because Rule 5 (1) of Rule 2006 requires the order to be passed by the State Government. It is therefore submitted that as on date this portion of the grievance can stand redressed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the documents appended with the writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned counsel for the appellant/Registrar General has filed the MCC application for modifying the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in MCC No. 319/2025 as the same has been disposed of by the order dated 03.04.2025 which reads as under: “This MCC has been filed by the applicant/Registrar General, High Court of Chhattisgarh for modification in the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.S. No. 4812/2021 and WPS No. 5879/2021 by substituting 8 the word “Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission”in place of ‘respondents’ in para 27 of the order. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission that they have already rectified the list on 24.01.2025 and the same has been sent to the Principal Secretary, law and Legislative Affairs Department, Raipur on 31.01.2025 for further action. Since the respondent/Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission has already initiated the proceeding, nothing is required to be adjudicated in this petition at this stge. Accordingly, the instant MCC stands disposed of .” 9. So far as the order passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 4812/2021 is concerned, it is submitted by counsel for the appellant/Registrar General that the exercise which was done in compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge by the CGPSC has already been decided and yesterday (ie. on 08.04.2025), the High Court has sent a letter to the State Government requesting to take appropriate decision in view of Rule 5(1) category a (1) of Rule 2006. 10. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.04.13 12:45:18 +0530