1 2025:CGHC:35148 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 633 of 2023 1 - Mohd. Azeem Qureshi S/o - Mohd Shakeel Qureshi, Aged About 41 Years R/o- 36/499, C.G. College Road, Byron Bazar, P.S. Kotwali, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary, - General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, North Block, Sector 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. Advocate General SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 22/07/2025 1. The core issue in this writ petition is the respondents’ failure to comply with a final judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P(C) 591/2012. The petitioner contends that this non-compliance undermines the authority of the Court and disrupts the judicial process. Furthermore, the State Public Service Commission is alleged to be conducting examinations in violation of constitutional provisions and contrary to official directives. This has created ambiguity regarding the implementation of reservation policies, particularly affecting the petitioner who belongs to the OBC category. The petitioner urges Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 urgent intervention of this Court to uphold justice and enforce the earlier judgment seeking following reliefs : “10.1 Hold that the Impugned Stipulation Exist in the Advertisement mentioned in Para 3 which Runs as Under:- " राज्य शासन द्वारा निनर्धाारिरत रिरतित से, अनुसूतित जातितयों, अनुसूतित जनजातितयों, अन्य निछडी श्रेणीयों तथा बेंमार्क नि"व्यांग व्यनि&यों, मनि'ला तथा भूतूर्व सैनिनर्को र्के लिलये रिरनि&यों र्के आरक्षण र्के अनुसार तिन्'ांर्कन/ यन र्की र्कायर्वा'ी र्की जायेगी।" is Arbitrary, Capricious, Illegal, Bad in law & liable to be Struck Down. 10.2 To issue appropriate writ / order / direction and thereby direct the respondent to conduct examination applying 50 percent reservation as per law prevailing on date of issuance of advertisement. 10.3 To issue appropriate writ / order / direction and thereby direct the respondent to issue clarification as regard to applicability of percentage of reservation in the impugned advertisement and the examination to be conducted in furtherance whereof. 10.4 To issue appropriate writ / order / direction and thereby direct the respondent to conduct examination only after clarifying the status as regard to 10.5 Grant any other relief(s) / order(s) / direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the cost to the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is an aspirant for the State Public Service Examination and belongs to the Other Backward Class (OBC) category. He duly submitted his application for the State Service Examination, seeking due consideration under the OBC quota. The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (PSC) 3 issued an advertisement dated 30.11.2022 for the State Service Examination 2022, scheduling the preliminary examination for 12.02.2023 and the mains examination for 11th to 14th May 2023. The shortlisting for the mains was to be done in the ratio of 1:10, based on reservation applicable to various categories. The window for online application was open from 01.12.2022 to 20.12.2022. The impugned advertisement is challenged for its vagueness and lack of clarity regarding the extent of reservation applied. Paragraph 3 of the advertisement mentions that selection would follow the reservation policies prescribed by the State Government but fails to specify exact percentages, leading to uncertainty and confusion. The issue of permissible reservation limits had already been settled by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 591/2012 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several judgments, which held that reservation beyond 50% is unconstitutional. A directive issued by the Registrar General of this Court dated 03.01.2023 reiterates that the reservation cap stands at 50%, pursuant to the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 591/2012. Despite this settled legal position, the PSC continues to act under the assumption that the earlier 58% reservation may still apply, justifying this on the basis that an SLP is being considered before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, no stay has been granted by the Apex Court, making this stance legally untenable. An RTI response further confirms the ambiguity and internal contradictions in the interpretation of respondent of the law. Importantly, the State Public Service Commission is a constitutionally mandated independent body under Article 315 of the Constitution. Its decision to defer to the directions of executive, instead of adhering to the prevailing judicial pronouncements and constitutional principles, undermines its autonomy and legality of the recruitment 4 process. In view of the above, the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking its intervention to ensure that the recruitment process complies with the law in force and the binding judgments of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the foundation of the present writ petition rests upon a cardinal principle of law, that once a judicial adjudication attains finality, it must be given full effect and be complied with in its true letter and spirit. In this case, the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 591/2012 has attained finality and, therefore, cannot be ignored or diluted by any executive or subordinate authority. It is argued that the respondents have blatantly disregarded the binding judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 591/2012. This omission is not merely administrative indifference but a serious affront to the majesty of law, amounting to undermining the authority of this Court and interfering with the due process of judicial proceedings and the larger administration of justice. The respondents have sought to override the judicial pronouncements by arbitrarily including vague and indeterminate clauses in the impugned advertisement (Para-3), which fails to clearly articulate the percentage or applicability of reservation. This amounts to a subversion of the rule of law and is a brazen attempt to usurp judicial functions by introducing uncertainty and confusion in the recruitment process, especially when the law on the extent of reservation is already well- settled. Learned counsel for petitioner emphasizes that the State has no unfettered power in matters of recruitment under Article 16 of the Constitution. Once the recruitment is routed through a constitutionally established body like the State Public Service Commission, the State cannot interfere or impose executive directions which are inconsistent 5 with the statutory or constitutional scheme. Any such executive fiat is not only unconstitutional but also a direct breach of the separation of powers. Learned counsel for petitioner highlights that the use of vague language in the advertisement and the respondents’ shifting stand, as revealed through RTI and official communications, amounts to adopting subterfuge and camouflage tactics to evade compliance with the judgment of the Court. The deliberate non-mention of the reservation percentage reflects an intent to circumvent judicial authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the well-established legal principle, as laid down in Taylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch D 426 and reiterated in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253, that when a statute prescribes the manner in which something is to be done, it must be done in that manner or not at all. The respondents’ deviation from the prescribed method is therefore without authority and illegal. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time. On the one hand, the State claims status quo on reservation, while on the other, the Public Service Commission proceeds with the recruitment in complete contradiction to it. Such inconsistent conduct violates the Doctrine of Approbation and Reprobation, which bars a party from taking contradictory stands in law. Due to the uncertainty and contradictory stand of the authorities regarding the applicability of reservation, genuine candidates like the petitioner, who belongs to the OBC category, are left in a state of doubt and disadvantage. The recruitment process, being conducted under such ambiguity, defeats the principles of transparency, fairness, and equal opportunity. In light of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for the intervention of this Court to safeguard the sanctity of its own judgment, 6 to ensure that constitutional provisions under Articles 14 and 16 are upheld, and to direct the respondents to carry out the recruitment strictly in accordance with the law laid down in W.P.(C) No. 591/2012. Finally, it is submitted that this Court, being the custodian of justice and constitutional values, is urged to protect the rights of the petitioner and to ensure that no individual or authority is allowed to override or dilute the judicial mandate through executive overreach or evasive practices. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the present writ petition has been filed based entirely on self-serving averments, assumptions, and misplaced apprehensions of the petitioner. The petitioner has approached this Court without disclosing the complete factual matrix and in doing so has attempted to project a skewed narrative. It is, therefore, necessary for the respondents to place the correct facts on record so that this Court may arrive at a just, fair, and equitable decision in this matter. It is submitted that the entire petition is speculative in nature and lacks any concrete legal grievance. The petitioner has no vested right to demand the declaration of specific percentages of reservation at the stage of issuance of advertisement, particularly when the matter concerning reservation percentages under the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Janjatiyon aur Anya Pichhde Vargon ke liye Aarakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 and Niyam, 1998 is still pending finalization. The challenge of petitioner, therefore, is premature and legally unsustainable. The State Government follows a consistent policy of initiating the State Service Examination process each year on 26th November, commemorating National Law Day. In adherence to this practice, and keeping in view the genuine aspirations of thousands of candidates who prepare year- round for the Civil Services Examination, the State Government 7 undertook the exercise in 2022 to identify and collect vacancy positions from various departments and forwarded a requisition to the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) for conducting the examination. The advertisement for the 2022 State Service Examination was issued to ensure continuity of the recruitment process and avoid hardship to candidates. However, in view of the pending final decision regarding the reservation percentages across different categories, it was deemed appropriate by the State Government to issue the advertisement provisionally, without detailing reservation percentages, to avoid further delay. Importantly, the respondents clarify that while the preliminary examination process has commenced, the declaration of its results will be withheld until the reservation percentages are conclusively determined. The respondents submit that the allegation of petitioner of prejudice is wholly unfounded. Since the result of the preliminary examination is not being declared until the reservation policy is finalized, no actual or perceived injury has yet been caused to the petitioner or any other similarly placed candidate. The claim of petitioner is thus speculative and anticipatory in nature, and such a challenge cannot be sustained in law. The State has acted in good faith and with due regard to the constitutional and statutory framework. The steps taken are aimed at ensuring the integrity and continuity of the examination process, while also awaiting final clarity on the reservation percentages. The attempt to challenge this well- intentioned and legally defensible decision must be rejected as baseless. In light of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the writ petition lacks merit, is premature, and is based on hypothetical grievances. The petitioner has failed to show any violation of legal or constitutional 8 rights, and as such, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the record with atmost circumspection. 6. The advertisement does not specify reservation percentages but clearly mentions that reservation shall be applied as per the policy determined by the State Government. The reservation scheme is admittedly under active consideration and has not been finalized. Thus, no illegality can be imputed at this stage, as the final act of reservation- based selection is yet to be undertaken. This Court cannot, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, grant relief in anticipation of a future advertisement or action which has not yet occurred. Judicial review requires a live and existing cause of action, not one based on assumptions or apprehensions. 7. In the present case, no actual harm or denial of reservation has yet taken place. As submitted by learned State counsel, the matter concerning reservation percentages under the 1994 Adhiniyam and 1998 Rules is still pending finalization, and the respondents are advertising posts with due reference to reservation in each category. Therefore, this Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State counsel that the petitioner has approached this Court even before any cause of action has arisen. The petitioner is always at liberty to approach this Court if and when a concrete violation of law or denial of reservation in terms of binding judgments is found to have occurred. However, at this stage, the petition appears to be speculative and bereft of merits. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted at this stage. 9 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy as and when any cause of action arises, particularly in a situation where reservation is not followed in accordance with law or judicial pronouncements. 9. It is made clear that this dismissal shall not preclude the petitioner from approaching this Court in future, if the State or the Public Service Commission fails to comply with applicable legal and constitutional mandates regarding reservation during the recruitment process. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE