1 2025:CGHC:24897-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 360 of 2025 Dr. Shailendra Kumar Patel S/o Late Shri Baratram Patel Aged About 50 Years Occupation- Service, Presently Working As Acting Registrar At Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University Raipur, R/o - LIG -37, Sector 02, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Department of Higher Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Under Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur C.G. 3 - Commissioner, Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Government Advocate For Internenor : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17 . 06 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents as well as Mr.C.Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel, appearing for the intervenor. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was writ petitioner in writ petition, has challenged the order dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure-A/1) passed by learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 7350 of 2023, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the petitioner was initially directly recruited and selected for the post of Deputy Registrar under the cadre of State University Services and vide order dated 26.02.2016 he was appointed as Deputy Registrar in the State University. The services of the petitioner are governed with the State Universities Service Rules, 1983 and as per Service Rules he was eligible for appointment to the post of Registrar to the University. A Departmental Promotion Committee was convened for promotion on the post of Deputy Registrar to Registrar. The petitioner was found fit in all respect for promotion to the post of Registrar, nevertheless, due to non availability of vacant post of Registrar, the petitioner could not be promoted as Registrar. Later on, the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission has initiated process for direct recruitment for the post of Registrar under the State University Cadre and three posts of Registrars were advertised by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission. The petitioner participated in the said recruitment process and has successfully selected as Registrar in the merit list. However, when 3 even after selection he was not appointed as Registrar, he moved a Writ Petition being No. 780/2022 before this Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 29.08.2022 while directing the State authorities to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner for the post of Registrar within a period of four weeks. Subsequently, when the State had tried to cancel the selection of the petitioner on the post of Registrar and tried to give appointment to the waiting list candidates and for this vide letter dated 31.10.2022, the claim of the petitioner was rejected for appointment on the post of Registrar, it was challenged by the petitioner in WPS No. 8005/2022. 4. According to the petitioner, in order to avoid appointment of the petitioner for the post of Registrar, the State has filed a writ appeal against the order dated 29.08.2022 passed in WPS No.780/2022. However, the said writ appeal was withdrawn by the State with liberty to file a review petition. A Review Petition No. 11/2023 was filed and in the meanwhile the petitioner has also moved a Contempt Petition No.1/2023 for compliance of order dated 29.08.2022 in which vide order dated 31.03.2023, this Court has directed the respondent authorities to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner. Vide order dated 10.04.2023, appointment order for the post of Registrar was issued in favour of the petitioner under pay matrix 16, however, posting order has not been given stating that it will be passed separately. Thereafter, instead of posting the petitioner as Registrar, the State authorities 4 have posted the petitioner on the post of Commissioner Higher Education Department vide order dated 31.08.2023. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order has again challenged the said order in the present Writ Petition No. 7350/2023. 5. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities have illegally violated the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. They have also passed the aforesaid order against the State Universities Services Rules, 1983, it was the further case of the petitioner that when the petitioner was selected for the post of Registrar in due process of recruitment and when the appointment order was also issued in favour of the petitioner for the post of Registrar, the respondent State cannot and could not post the petitioner on the post of Commissioner Higher Education Department. The advertisement was issued while stating that 3 posts of Registrars are lying vacant, however, inspite of having vacancy only in order to avoid appointment to the petitioner, the petitioner was illegally harassed by the respondent authorities. The petitioner was earlier selected and appointed on the post of Deputy Registrar and thereafter when the DPC was conducted he was found fit for promotion to the post of Registrar, but, due to non availability of vacant post of Registrar, the petitioner could not be promoted, however, in the meanwhile when the posts are lying vacant and an advertisement was issued for direct recruitment on the post of Registrar, the petitioner has 5 filed an application, participated in the recruitment process and he was also selected on merits for the post of Registrar. Since the petitioner was recruited and selected for 3 vacant posts of the Registrars, he was required to be issued appointment and posting order also. But, again, the respondent authorities have illegally not issued an appointment order in respect of the petitioner for the post of Registrar, as they are biased against the petitioner. The reason based to known the respondent authorities they are clearly avoided appointment of the petitioner to the post of Registrar. By hooks and crooks they anyhow wanted that the petitioner may not be appointed as Registrar. For that they have challenged the order by which directions were issued for appointment of petitioner to the post of Registrar. When they could not successful in the writ appeal, they withdrawn it and thereafter, they have filed a review petition. In the meanwhile, in the contempt petition they were directed to give appointment to the petitioner. Now, when they failed in every forum in order to again harass the petitioner, they have issued appointment order in favour of the petitioner to the post of Registrar, however, posting order has not been given and in order to side line the petitioner, they have posted the petitioner to the post of Commissioner Higher Education Department in an illegal and arbitrary manner. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits the impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge without appreciating the ground and submissions made by the appellant/ 6 petitioner. He further submitted that there is nothing on record to show that why the petitioner who has been selected to the post of Registrar cannot be given posting order in respect of Registrar inspite of the fact that appointment order has been issued in his favour. The entire acts of the respondent authorities smacks with arbitrariness and favoritism and are full of bias and malafides. He also submitted that though there are availability of vacant post of Registrar in the Universities situated at Raigarh, Bilaspur, Bastar and Raipur, but he is not being given posting as Registrar and is still working as Acting Registrar. It has been contended that the the learned Single Judge has also failed to appreciate that the petitioner is an officer of the University under the C.G. University Act, 1973 and as per Rules 23 of the State Universities Service Rules, 1983 on his selection on merits and upon vacancy to the post of Registrar. He is required to be posted on the said post. The denial of posting on the post of Registrar is illegal, arbitrary and malafide acts of the respondent authorities. The State is only cadre controlling authority as per Rules 23 of the State Universities Service Rules, 1983. The authority to pay salary as Registrar is the University. He further contended that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed to the post of Registrar as he is not having 8 years of experience, whereas the learned Single Judge has also failed to appreciate the letter / note sheet of the CG Public Service Commission filed by the petitioner in which the Public Service Commission informed the respondent 7 regarding the eligibility of the petitioner. It has been contended that the there are non considerations of the documents filed by the petitioner in the writ petition, as such, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents / State opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that the petitioner is relying upon the Rules 23 of the State Universities Service Rules, 1983 before amendment, however, subsequently in the Rules the Chhattisgarh has incorporated amendments which has been published in Gazetted Notification dated 27.12.2011. According to the said amendment in Scheduled-II for appointment to the post of Registrar, the requisite qualification would be 15 years of administrative experience in which at least 8 years of work was while performing duties of Deputy Registrar or any equivalent post or 15 years experience in the Gazetted post of State Civil Services. He also submitted that as the petitioner was appointed on 26.02.2016 and in the year 2022 when the advertisement was issued for appointment of Registrar, he has not completed 8 years as Deputy Registrar, as such he was not appointed to the post of Registrar of any University and the services of the petitioner has been attached to the office of respondent No. 3 i.e. Commissioner, Higher Education Department. He also submitted that the learned Single Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner / appellant herein, 8 in which no interference is called for. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 9. From perusal of the impugned order and the materials available on record, it transpires that the services of the appellant was approved by the State and the appellant was appointed to the post of Deputy Registrar way back on 26.02.2016. Though he was directed to be considered for promotion post of Registrar as he fulfills the criteria for promotion to the said post, however, due to unavailability of post, he could not be appointed. Later on, in the year 2022, the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission has initiated process for direct recruitment for the post of Registrar under the State University Cadre and three posts of Registrars were advertised by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission. The petitioner participated in the said recruitment process and has successfully selected as Registrar in the merit list. However, when even after selection he was not appointed as Registrar he moved a Writ Petition being No. 780/2022. The said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 29.08.2022 while directing the State authorities to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner for the post of Registrar within a period of four weeks. 10. In the meanwhile, after being selected for the post of Registrar, the documents of the petitioner were verified which were issued by Higher Education Department. Upon verification, it was found that the petitioner who is at Serial No. 2 in the select list was not 9 fulfilling the essential conditions as laid down in the advertisement. The petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard but he could not satisfy that he is fulfilling the requisite criteria as laid down by the State for appointment to the post of Registrar and as such vide letter dated 31.10.2022 of the Higher Education Department the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Registrar was declared to be void and invalid. The State has filed a writ appeal against the order dated 29.08.2022 passed in WPS No.780/2022. However, the said writ appeal was withdrawn by the State with liberty to file a review petition. A Review Petition No. 11/2023 was filed and in the meanwhile the petitioner has also moved a Contempt Petition No. 1/2023 for compliance of order dated 29.08.2022 in which vide order dated 31.03.2023, this Court has directed the respondent authorities to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner. In compliance of the said order, vide order dated 10.04.2023 appointment order for the post of Registrar was issued in favour of the petitioner under pay matrix 16, however, posting order has not been given stating that it will be passed separately. 11. Subsequently, a Committee was constituted in order to verify the eligibility of the petitioner vide order dated 25.04.2023. The said Committee has given its finding that as Shri Patel has rendered total service of 06 years 01 month in Academic Grade Pay Rs.7000/- and total service of 03 years 04 months in Academic Grade Pay Rs. 8000/-, he does not fulfill the required eligibility 10 criteria for the post of Registrar as per "Chhattisgarh State University Service Rules, 1983". Therefore, since, the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite criteria to be appointed to the post of Registrar as such instead of posting the petitioner to the post of Registrar, he has been attached to the office of Commissioner, Higher Education Department and while doing so the respondent authorities have not committed any illegality. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein and further considering the trite law that any aspirant who has put his candidature for some post even if he is selected for the said post, it will not give any indefensible right to him to get appointed on the said post, there are various aspects upon which a person can be denied appointment even after his selection, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra