1 2025:CGHC:2779 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 531 of 2016 Akash Garhewal, S/o. Late Shri Rampal Garhewal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Juna Bilaspur, Near Sao Bagicha, Ward No. 32, Police Station City Kotwali, Tehsil Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Capitol Complex, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Pandit Sunderlal Sharma Open University, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Through Registrar, Pandit Sunderlal Sharma Open University, Chhattisgarh, Koni Birkona Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495009. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.01.17 16:50:49 +0530 2 16.01.2025 1. The petitioner called in question the advertisement dated 23.10.2015 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent No.1 and the recruitment process initiated by the respondent No.2 inviting applications for recruiting the post of Professors of various subjects vide Annexure P-1 holding that there shall be 12% reservation for the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes at the stage of direct recruitment in public services has not been made, therefore, it is liable to be quashed. 2. The State has filed its return stating inter alia that the petitioner has not participated in the recruitment process in pursuant to the impugned advertisement and the entire recruitment process has been completed by the University in the year 2016 and the persons who were found in the merit list have been appointed on the post of Assistant Professor, Education Department and those persons have also not been impleaded as necessary parties and, as such, this petition is not maintainable and it deserves to be dismissed. 3. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned advertisement is required to be quashed for not providing the reservation to the members of Other Backward Class. 3 4. Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, would submit that the petitioner has not participated in the recruitment process in pursuant to the impugned advertisement, the recruitment process has already been completed in the year 2016 and the persons who were appointed on the post of Assistant Professor etc. have not been impleaded as necessary parties, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not participated in the recruitment process in pursuant to advertisement dated 23.10.2015 and the recruitment process has already been completed in 2016 and the persons who were appointed have not been impleaded as party respondents in the instant writ petition. As such, I do not find any merit in this petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok