1 2025:CGHC:44833-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 624 of 2025 Laxminarayan Gayakwad S/o Setram Gayakwad Aged About 31 Years Category - Sc, R/o. Village - Lacchanpur, Post - Bitkuli, Tehsil - Bhatapara, Thana - Karhi Bazar, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. Presently Posted As Constable. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralya, P.S. And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Director General of Police (D.G.P.), Police Head Quarter (P.H.Q.) Sector-19, P.S. And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) Through Secretary, Vyapam Bhavan, North Block, Sector -19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Shyam Kumar, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shyam Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.09.03 17:55:17 +0530 2 General, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 & 2 as well as Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 61 days in preferring the appeal. 2. For the grounds assigned in the application (I.A. No.01), the same is allowed. Delay of 61 days in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 3. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):- “It is, therefore played that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this appeal and set aside quash the impugned order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court in REVP/46 of 2025 and order dated 20.05.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court in WP(S) No. 3393 of 2023 and kindly allow the petition, in the interest of justice.” 4. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No.46/2025 (Laxminarayan Gayakwad v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the review petition filed by the writ petitioner has been dismissed. The said review petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.3393/2023, by which 3 the learned Single judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant /writ petitioner by accepting the contention of some petitioners of other writ petitions during analogous hearing and declared the inclusion of female category candidates in merit list prepared after Mains Examination for physical efficiency test illegal, therefore, quashed the inclusion of 30% female category candidates in merit list prepared for physical efficiency test and further directed to conclude the entire selection process within four months from the date of declaration of 370 candidates and rest other matter were dismissed. 5. The appellants herein in the writ petitions have challenged the recruitment procedure initiated by the State for appointment in various posts in the Police Department and WPS No.4378/2023 in case of Roopesh Kumar and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others has been taken up as lead case. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.3393/2023 vide order dated 20.05.2024, the appellant herein/writ petitioner has filed a petition being Review petition No.46/2025, which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.03.2025. 7. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the review petition being Review Petition No.46/2025, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 4 8. Mr. Shyam Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner/review petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Bench in Review Petition No.46 of 2025, as well as the order dated 20.05.2024 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.3393 of 2023 and analogous matters, are bad in law and liable to be set aside. It is contended that despite clear rules providing for selection of only the top 19,500 candidates in the Preliminary Examination, the respondent authorities deviated from the settled procedure and prepared a merit list by invoking the reservation roster at the preliminary stage itself. This resulted in inclusion of candidates with much lower scores, while simultaneously the merit list was not prepared post-wise. For instance, out of 975 posts, 247 posts of Platoon Commander were exclusively reserved for male candidates under the Rules and advertisement, yet the respondents prepared a common merit list including female candidates even for such posts. Learned counsel submits that as per the Rules of 2021 and the advertisement, the marks obtained in the Preliminary Examination were only for the purpose of screening candidates for the Mains Examination, and not to be considered for final selection. The final selection is based only on marks obtained in the Mains Examination, Physical Proficiency Test, and Interview. Hence, the deviation in the preliminary stage seriously prejudiced meritorious candidates, including the appellants. It is further submitted that under Rule 11(7), 30% horizontal reservation is 5 provided to female candidates. However, female candidates were not eligible to apply for the post of Platoon Commander as per Rule 6(8) and the advertisement itself. Thus, for 247 posts of Platoon Commander, no female candidates could have been considered. Out of 975 posts, only 728 were available to female candidates, and 30% reservation could only be calculated against these 728 posts. However, the respondents erroneously calculated reservation on the full 975 posts, and consequently included 6,013 female candidates in the merit list for the Mains Examination, instead of restricting it to 4,368. This illegal inclusion of 1,645 excess female candidates deprived an equal number of male candidates of their rightful inclusion in the Mains Examination. Learned counsel further contends that as per Rule 11(6), 5% of the total posts are horizontally reserved for departmental candidates. This reservation is not compartment- wise and cannot be carried forward. However, the respondents wrongly applied vertical reservation on this horizontal quota, which led to the exclusion of several departmental candidates despite their higher marks. It is submitted that the learned Single Bench, while considering analogous writ petitions, itself held that inclusion of female candidates in the merit list for the Physical Efficiency Test after the Mains Examination was illegal, and accordingly directed the authorities to call 370 male candidates for the said test. However, the same illegality committed at the stage of preparing the preliminary merit list was not considered by the 6 learned Single Bench in its order dated 20.05.2024, despite being squarely raised. Learned counsel submits that the appellant, being otherwise eligible and meritorious, has been illegally ousted from the zone of consideration due to the above-mentioned irregularities. If the respondents had strictly followed the Rules of 2021 and the advertisement dated 17.09.2021, the appellant would have been included in the merit list for the Mains Examination. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, and appropriate directions be issued to the respondent authorities to rectify the merit list strictly in accordance with the Rules of 2021 and the terms of advertisement, so that the appellant’s candidature is duly considered for the Mains Examination. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2, and Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. They jointly submitted that the controversy involved in the present case is no longer res integra, as the very same issue has already been considered and decided by this Court in Writ Appeal No.481/2024, which came to be dismissed by order dated 06.09.2024. It is urged that the challenge laid by the appellant is identical in nature to the one raised in the aforesaid writ appeal, wherein this Court has already upheld the process of selection adopted by the respondent authorities. It was 7 further submitted that once the Court has adjudicated upon the legality and validity of the procedure followed by the respondents in an earlier round of litigation, the principle of judicial discipline requires that the present appeal be disposed of in the same terms so as to maintain consistency in judicial pronouncements. They also contended that the selection process has been conducted strictly in accordance with the Rules of 2021 and the terms of the advertisement, and no prejudice has been caused to the appellant. They submitted that the merit list was prepared fairly and transparently, and the allegations of deviation from the Rules or violation of reservation principles are wholly misconceived. Accordingly, it is argued that there is no substance in the present appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed at the very threshold by applying the ratio laid down in Writ Appeal No.481/2024. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the judgment dated 06.09.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No.481/2024. 11. In an identical matter, this Court had dismissed Writ Appeal No.481/2024 vide judgment dated 06.09.2024 observing as follows : “7. On going through the order impugned, it transpires that the same is quite detailed one in which number of other writ petitions have also been decided wherein some other 8 issues were also raised. The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the judgment rendered in Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 344, wherein the issue with regard to the power to quash the entire selection process had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that in light of the legal position and facts of the case, no ground for quashing of the entire selection process was made out. The appellants/writ petitioners have participated in the selection process without any demour or protest and as such, they are estopped from challenging the same after having being declared unsuccessful. 8. This Court concurs with the findings and observation made by the learned Single Judge in its order which is impugned herein. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order under challenge and as such, this appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.” 12. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon a careful perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the controversy raised in the present appeal stands squarely covered by the decision rendered in Writ Appeal No.481/2024, decided on 06.09.2024. The factual matrix as well as the legal issues involved herein are 9 identical to those considered in the aforesaid writ appeal. 13. This Court, therefore, does not find any distinguishing circumstance or additional ground which would warrant a departure from the view already taken. Once the matter has been conclusively settled in Writ Appeal No.481/2024, judicial discipline requires consistency in approach, and the same view must necessarily be followed in the present case as well. 14. Accordingly, the present writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed in terms of the judgment dated 06.09.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No.481/2024. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu