1 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters 2025:CGHC:54054-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 730 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) --- Appellant versus 1 - Amit Kumar Bharadwaj S/o Shri Tularam Bharadwaj Aged About 27 Years R/o Room No. B-101, Joy Residency, Kududand Road, Mangla, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, (C.G.) 2 - The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.06 19:44:25 +0530 2 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters WA No. 772 of 2025 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 492002........(Respondent No. 1) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administrative Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 492002.......(Respondent No. 2) --- Appellant Versus 1 - Ms. Khushboo Bizoara D/o Mr. Nand Kishore Bizoara, Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 2490/43, Aminpara, Purani Basti, Raipur (C.G.) 492001............(Petitioner) 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)......... (Respondent No. 3) 3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Controller Of Examination North Block, Sector-19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)..........(Respondent No. 4) --- Respondent(s) 3 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters WA No. 804 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distrct- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 1) 2 - Under Secretary General Administration Department Government Of Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2) --- Appellants Versus 1 - Pragya Nayak D/o Shri Mahesh Kumar Nayak Aged About 26 Years R/o S.R. M.I.G. 268, Sec-2, D.D.U. Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner) 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 3) --- Respondent(s) WA No. 792 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration, Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492015 (Respondent No. 1) 4 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters --- Appellant Versus 1 - Ananya Agrawal D/o Ravi Kumar Agrawal Aged About 27 Years R/o Kailash Medical Store, Main Road Lakhanpur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh (Petitioner) 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Chairman Shankar Nagar Road, Bhaghat Singh Square, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2) --- Respondent(s) WA No. 798 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of Home Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa, Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No.1) --- Appellant Versus 1 - Shrikant Dev Shukla S/o A.K. Shukla Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Komakhan Dist- Mahasamund C.G. (Petitioner No.1) 2 - Yatindra Burman S/o Amarchand Burman Aged About 28 Years R/o B-2, Alka Avenue, Uslapur, Dist- Bilaspur C.G. (Petitioner No.2) 5 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters 3 - Mrinmayee Shukla D/o Shri Harbansh Shukla Aged About 31 Years R/o H 2/13, Narmada Nagar, Gaurav Path, Mangla, Chowk, Civil Line, Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner No.3) 4 - Vibhas Nagdeve S/o Shri Sanju Nagdeve Aged About 26 Years R/o Shri Shyam Residency Ward No. 2, Bajrangpur Nawagaon Rajnandgaon Dist- Rajnandgaon, C.G. (Petitioner No.4) 5 - Shashwat Mishra S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Mishra Aged About 26 Years R/o Near Vishnu Mandir Purani Basti Janjgir, Dist- Janjgir- Champa C.G. (Petitioner No.5) 6 - Rahul Sharma S/o Shri R.K. Sharma Aged About 29 Years R/o House No. 353, Village- Jaroud, Tahsil Simga, Dist- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (Petitioner No.6) 7 - Ashesh Chandra Sharma S/o Shri R.S. Sharma Aged About 35 Years R/o Ram Vihar Near Kuber Kunj Seepat Road Lingyadih Sarkanda, Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Petitioner No.7) 8 - Sonal Yadav S/o Shri S.K. Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o H. No. 153, J.P. Vihar Colony Mangla Bilaspur Dist- Bilaspur C.G. (Petitioner No.8) 6 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters 9 - Vinay Kashyap S/o Shri Arun Kashyap Aged About 27 Years R/o H. No.166, Raja Colony Ranigaon Lormi, Dist- Mungeli, C.G. (Petitioner No.9) 10 - Rajesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri C.K. Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Fekari Tahsil Patan Dist- Durg C.G. (Petitioner No.10) 11 - Shailendra Anant S/o Shri Patiram Anant Aged About 28 Years R/o H.No.32, Banjinpara, Mahrapara Jute Mill Road, Raigarh, Dist- Raigarh C.G. (Petitioner No.11) 12 - Yamini Banjare D/o Shri O.P. Banjare Aged About 32 Years R/o Plot No. 432/4 Street No.6, Ashish Nagar, (West) Risali, Bhilai Dist- Durg (C.G.) (Petitioner No.12) 13 - Vinod Kumar Banjare S/o Shri M.R. Banjare Aged About 28 Years R/o H. No. 72, Basti Para, Gandhi Gram Mandir Hasaud Raipur Dist- Raipur C.G. (Petitioner No.13) 14 - Rajeev Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Nagarda Tahsil Naya Baradwar, Sakti Dist- Sakti C.G. (Petitioner No.14) 15 - Vinayak Singh S/o Shri Premlal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Anchhidongari, Post- Dudhawa, Kanker, Dist- Kanker C.G. (Petitioner No.15) 7 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters 16 - Mukesh Kumar Painkra S/o Shri Tejraj Sai Aged About 27 Years R/o H. No.163, Village- Lukhi Tahsil Manora Dist- Jashpur, C.G. (Petitioner No.16) 17 - Bhujendra Singh S/o Shri Muneshwar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Radhapur, Post- Pratapgarh, Tahsil- Sitapur, Dist- Surguja C.G. (Petitioner No.17) 18 - Pradeep Bhagat S/o Shri B.L. Bhagat Aged About 33 Years R/o H. No. 213, Darbari Toli, Jashpur Nagar, Dist- Jashpur C.G. (Petitioner No.18) 19 - Pushpendra S/o Shri Amiya Lal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Baya H. No. 159, Ward No. 7, Ramsagarpara, Kasdol Dist- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara C.G. (Petitioner No.19) 20 - Kamini Dhurve D/o Shri K. K. Dhurve Aged About 31 Years R/o H. No. 205/12, Shikshak Nagar Near Railway Colony Ward No. 2. Balod Dist- Balod C.G. (Petitioner No.20) 21 - Kajal Shyam D/o Shri C.S. Shyam Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Binjhrapara, Post- Baksahi, Tahsil Pali, Dist- Korba C.G. (Petitioner No.21) 22 - Dushyant Kumar S/o Shri Revet Ram Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Khalari Post- Khalari, Tahsil Dondi Dist- Balod C.G. (Petitioner No.22) 8 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters 23 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through- Its Secretary Shankar Nagar, Raipur Dist- Raipur C.G. (Respondent No.2) --- Respondent(s) WA No. 803 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 1) 2 - Principal Secretary, Department Of Home And Jail ACairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 2) 3 - Chhattisgarh Prison And Correctional Services Through The Director General, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 3) --- Appellants Versus 1 - Rahul Kumar Patel S/o Mangalcharan Patel Aged About 29 Years R/o House No. 304/k, Near Shankar Munda Talab, Block Colony, Saraipali, P.S. And Tehsil - Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Petitioner) 9 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through The Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)(Respondent No. 4) --- Respondent(s) WA No. 794 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492015 (Respondent No. 1) --- Appellant Versus 1 - Neha Xalxo D/o Shri Amrit Kumar Xalxo Aged About 32 Years R/o Block - A, Rose 240, Talpuri, Bhilai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner) 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through - Its Chairman, Shankar Nagar Road, Bhaghat Singh Square, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2) --- Respondent(s) WA No. 789 of 2025 10 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant Versus 1 - Sahil S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Sonwani Aged About 27 Years R/o 103 Banyan Housing Board Colony, Shadani Darbar, Boriya Kala, Mana-Camp, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.(Petitioner) 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.(Respondent No. 2) --- Respondent(s) WA No. 791 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 1) --- Appellant Versus 11 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters 1 - Princee Tamboli D/o Shri Guljarilal Tamboli Aged About 28 Years R/o Matrika Vihar, Near Danteshwari Temple, Gopiyapara, Puranibasti, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) (Petitioner) 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through - Its Secretary, North Block, Sector - 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 2) --- Respondent(s) WA No. 774 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1) 2 - Under Secretary General Administration Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2) --- Appellant Versus 1 - Sakshi Dhruw D/o Shri K.L. Dhruw Aged About 27 Years R/o 39/2, Street 6a, Maitri Nagar, Risali, Civic Centre Bhilai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner) 12 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector - 19, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3) --- Respondent(s) WA No. 790 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Raipur, Atal Nagar District - Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1) 2 - Under Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2) --- Appellants Versus 1 - Rana Vijay S/o Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o Behind S.P. OEce, Nehru Ward, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner) 2 - Public Service Commission Through Chairman, Public Service Commission, North Block, Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3) --- Respondent(s) 13 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters WA No. 793 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492015 (Wrongly Mentioned As Through Its Chairman In Cause Title) (Respondent No. 1) --- Appellant Versus 1 - Nikhil Xalxo S/o Shri Amrit Kumar Xalxo, Aged About 30 Years R/o Block-A, Rose 240, Talpuri, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner) 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commmission, Through Its Chairman, Shankar Nagar Road, Bhaghat Singh Square, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 2) --- Respondent(s) WA No. 801 of 2025 State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, General Administration, Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava, Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Appellant Versus 14 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters 1 - Nitesh S/o Late Shri Rajesh Sonwani Aged About 34 Years R/o Infront Of Null Mill, Post - Madeli, Null Sarbada Tehsil Bakhra District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, (Petitioner ) 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through- Its Secretary, North Block- Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No.2) --- Respondent(s) WA No. 795 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar District - Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1) --- Appellant Versus 1 - Mahendra Kumar Sidar S/o Shri Murlidhar Sidar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Katahardi, Post - Katahardi, Tehsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Petitioner) 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block , Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2) --- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) 15 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters For Appellants : Shri Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For Respective Respondents : Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Shri Sourabh Sahu, Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Shri Aman Tamboli, Shri Abhyuday Singh, Shri Bhaskar Payasi, Shri Tarun Naik, Shri C. Jayant K. Rao, Shri Harshwardhan Parganiha, Shri Rakesh Kumar Jha and Shri Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Advocates For CGPSC : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For CBI : Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate appears through Video Conferencing. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06/11/2025 1. Since the common facts and grounds involved in all these writ appeals and they are arising out of common impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, they are being considered and decided by this common order. 2. Heard Shri Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General, learned counsel for the appellants Also heard Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate, Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Shri Aman Tamboli, Shri Sourabh Sahu, Shri Abhyuday 16 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters Singh, , Shri Bhaskar Payasi, , Shri Tarun Naik, Shri C. Jayant K. Rao, Shri Harshwardhan Parganiha, Shri Rakesh Kumar Jha , Shri Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Advocates, Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate for CGPSC and Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate for CBI. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/State has Gled the applications for condonation of delay in the writ appeals. 4. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed. Delay in Gling the writ appeals is hereby condoned. 5. These writ appeals have been preferred by the appellant/respondents in writ petition assailing the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the batch of WPS No. 2311/2024 and other connected writ petitions, whereby the writ petitions preferred by the appellants/respondents came to be disposed of. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the writ Court. 6. (a) Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the CGPSC issued an advertisement dated 26.11.2021, published on 01.12.2021, 17 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters inviting applications for recruitment to 171 posts across 20 diCerent State services, including 15 posts for Deputy Collector and several other posts such as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Superintendent (District Jail), Finance OEcer, Labour OEcer, Assistant Jail Superintendent, Naib Tahsildar, and others. The recruitment process was conducted as per the CGPSC Rules of Procedure, 2014 (as amended in 2019). The petitioners, being fully eligible and meritorious, applied under their respective categories (Unreserved, OBC, SC, ST, OBC Female) and successfully participated in the multi-stage selection process comprising a preliminary examination held on 13.02.2022, mains examination conducted from 26.05.2022 to 29.05.2022, and interviews held from 20.09.2022 to 30.09.2022. Upon conclusion of the recruitment process, the Gnal merit list was published on 11.05.2023, in which the petitioners secured top positions, including 1st rank in the SC category (WPS 2311/2024), 1st rank in OBC category for Superintendent (District Jail) (WPS 577/2024), and other high-ranking positions in the overall list for Deputy Collector and Deputy 18 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters Superintendent of Police (WPS 2048/2024, 2469/2024, 2528/2024, 2610/2024). (b) Pursuant to their selection, the petitioners were called for document veriGcation and submission of requisite undertakings and aEdavits between May 2023 and June 2023. In certain cases, such as WPS 577/2024, the petitioners were also directed to undergo medical examinations, which they duly completed. Thus, all post-selection formalities were complied with by the petitioners in accordance with law. In the meantime, a Public Interest Litigation bearing W.P.(PIL) No. 81/2023 was Gled by a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) before this Hon’ble Court, alleging irregularities, favoritism, and corruption in the CGPSC 2021 recruitment process. The PIL speciGcally alleged that certain selected candidates were relatives of inIuential persons, including politicians, senior bureaucrats, and members of the CGPSC administration. During the hearings, the OEce of the Advocate General submitted that an FIR bearing No. 05/2024 had already been registered under Sections 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and relevant provisions of the 19 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was also submitted that the investigation had been handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). (c) Upon recording the above submissions, this Hon’ble Court disposed of the PIL on 14.02.2024, leaving the matter to be investigated by the CBI. However, despite no allegations of misconduct or irregularity being made against the petitioners, their appointment orders have been arbitrarily withheld by the respondents. It is noteworthy that other candidates whose selections are also allegedly under investigation have nonetheless been issued appointment orders and permitted to join their service. For example, appointment orders were issued to selected candidates for posts such as Labour OEcer, Assistant Director (Tribal Development), Finance OEcer, Naib Tahsildar, and Assistant Jail Superintendent under the same recruitment notiGcation. Aggrieved by such arbitrary discrimination, the petitioners submitted multiple representations to the respondent authorities between October 2023 and January 2024, seeking issuance of their appointment orders. However, no response or action has been 20 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters forthcoming. Some petitioners also Gled applications under the Right to Information Act to ascertain the reasons for the delay, but no substantive information has been provided. As per Rule 19.2 of the CGPSC Rules of Procedure, 2014, the select list remains valid for one year from its publication (11.05.2023 to 10.05.2024) and may be extended up to two years in extraordinary circumstances as per an amendment notiGed on 02.05.2019. The petitioners submit that failure to issue their appointment orders before expiry of the select list’s validity will render their entire selection process futile, thereby frustrating the fruits of their years of arduous preparation and irreparably harming their service prospects. (d) In the meantime, the CGPSC, 2022 recruitment cycle has been completed, and candidates selected therein have already been issued appointment orders and sent for training, thereby gaining seniority over the petitioners from the 2021 batch. The arbitrary withholding of appointment orders to the petitioners, who have been selected purely on merit and against whom no allegations exist, violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 21 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters The petitioners, some of whom have been preparing for civil services since as early as 2015 and have made repeated attempts to succeed in the CGPSC examinations, now stand to lose the fruit of their hard work, perseverance, and merit due to the inaction of the respondents. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petitions by the order impugned and has observed as under:- “xxx xxx xxx 25. Applying the principles laid down in the above- mentioned judgments to the facts of the present case, it is evident that even if the version of the respondent- State is accepted in its entirety, the allegations pertain only to a limited number of candidates. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which has taken over the investigation, has (led charge sheets against certain individuals, identifying them as "tainted". However, for the remaining candidates, the CBI has expressly indicated that further investigation is ongoing, and no de(nitive (ndings of misconduct 22 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters have been made against them thus far. In such circumstances, there is no legal or factual justi(cation to deprive candidates, against whom no allegation has been made, and who are not named in the charge sheets, of their appointments. These candidates can be reasonably classi(ed as "untainted". 26. This Court has perused the progress report submitted by the CBI, (led through an a,davit by the competent authority. Upon a detailed examination of the said report, it is apparent that, at this stage, no incriminating material has been found against the selectees other than those who have already been charge-sheeted. It is important to recognize that while some additional names may emerge as "tainted" upon conclusion of the ongoing investigation, the current record does not implicate the majority of selectees. After the case was initially investigated by the State Police and subsequently transferred to the CBI, the investigative agency has 23 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters exercised due diligence in naming only speci(c individuals in the charge sheets. Hence, the Court is of the view that the entire selection list cannot be termed as vitiated, and consequently, all selectees cannot be indiscriminately treated as tainted. 27. The core issue before this Court pertains to the appointment of candidates from a selection list that has been subject to allegations of irregularities and subsequent investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The respondent-State authorities have resisted the issuance of appointment letters on the ground that the entire selection list is under doubt. The petitioners, on the other hand, assert that many candidates are innocent and should not be deprived of their legitimate appointments due to the alleged misconduct of a few. 28. Having carefully considered the facts and the progress of the investigation, this Court notes that the CBI has, so far, (led charge sheets only against a limited number of candidates named in the FIR. For 24 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters the majority of the candidates, no adverse material has been brought on record. The ongoing investigation is yet to conclude, and it remains open whether further names may be added. In such a scenario, a blanket denial of appointment to all candidates on the selection list would be unjust and contrary to the principles of natural justice. 29. In view of the foregoing, this Court (nds it appropriate to direct the respondent-State authorities to proceed with issuance of appointment letters to those candidates who are not named in the charge sheets (led by the CBI and against whom no adverse material presently exists. This direction aims to strike a balance between safeguarding the rights of innocent candidates and preserving the interest of State in ensuring a fair and lawful recruitment process. 30. However, such appointments shall be expressly subject to the outcome of the ongoing CBI investigation. The respondent-State authorities are 25 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters directed to include a clear and unambiguous clause in the appointment orders stipulating that any adverse (ndings emerging in the future pursuant to the FIR or investigation may lead to appropriate legal action, (including) but not limited to termination of service. This safeguard ensures that the appointments are not treated as (nal exoneration or immunity from scrutiny. 31. It is further directed that the appointment letters shall state explicitly that the issuance of appointment should not be construed as conclusive proof of innocence or permanent protection from any allegation that may arise in the course of the investigation. This conditional nature of appointment serves to uphold the principles of fairness and accountability. 32. The Court also takes note that the candidates who are eligible for appointment had submitted their applications within the validity period of the selection list, a fact that must be given due weight by the 26 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters respondent authorities while implementing this judgment. The vested right of such candidates, arising from their timely application and selection, cannot be lightly brushed aside. 33. This direction of this Court to segregate tainted and untainted candidates respects the constitutional mandate of equality, fairness, and justice. It ensures that innocent candidates are not deprived of their rights due to allegations against others and that the ongoing investigation by the competent authorities is not hampered or prejudiced. The aforesaid exercise of issuing appointment orders be (nalized within a period of sixty days. 34. With these observation and direction, these writ petitions stands disposed of." 8. (i) Learned counsel for the appellants/respondents in the writ petition submit that the learned Single Judge erred in directing appointment of the petitioner and other candidates despite having speciGcally observed in para 10 of the judgment that the 27 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters decision of the State Government to withhold the appointment orders was a deliberate and considered response to grave allegations of systemic corruption and nepotism in the recruitment process. It is contended that the CBI, in its charge- sheet, has clearly stated that further investigation is pending with respect to several selected candidates and oEcials of the Public Service Commission, including the then Chairman, Secretary, and Controller of Examination. Therefore, till the completion of investigation, no indefeasible right accrues to any candidate merely by inclusion in the select list, as the employer retains the prerogative to issue or withhold appointments. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak & Others vs. Rajasthan High Court & Others, (2025) 2 SCC 1, to submit that the State is under no legal duty to Gll up the vacancies. (ii) It is further argued that the learned Single Judge has misapplied the precedents in Sachin Kumar vs. DSSSB and Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu vs. Union of India, as those cases are factually distinguishable. The learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate the CBI’s sealed report and prematurely held that the entire selection list cannot be treated as vitiated, 28 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters whereas the investigation into the extent of corruption is still ongoing, and several accused including the then Controller of Examination have recently been arrested, indicating large-scale irregularities in the recruitment process. Hence, the appellants seek setting aside of the impugned order. 9. (A) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents/writ petitioners submits that the action of the respondent-State in withholding the issuance of appointment orders to the petitioners, despite their inclusion in the select list dated 11.05.2023 pursuant to the Chhattisgarh State Civil Services Examination-2021, is patently arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, having successfully participated in a rigorous, merit-based selection process conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC), and having emerged successful on their own merit, have a legitimate expectation of appointment. The denial of this expectation without any cogent, justiGed, or lawful reason infringes their fundamental rights and undermines the sanctity of the selection process. The only purported justiGcation oCered by the State is the 29 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters pendency of a CBI investigation against certain candidates involved in the same selection process. (B) It is humbly submitted that this justiGcation is untenable insofar as no allegations whatsoever have been made against the petitioners individually, nor are their selections in any manner tainted. The respondents’ decision to impose a blanket embargo on all appointments, including those of unblemished and meritorious candidates like the petitioners, amounts to an overbroad, disproportionate, and colourable exercise of power. Such collective punishment of innocent candidates violates the principles of natural justice and due process. It is further submitted that several other candidates selected in the same recruitment process have already been issued appointment orders and allowed to join service in various departments. Arbitrarily singling out the petitioners, particularly for posts such as Deputy Collector and Deputy Superintendent of Police, without any rational classiGcation or lawful justiGcation, reIects a discriminatory and inconsistent approach violative of Article 14. This pick-and-choose method adopted by the State is impermissible under law and 30 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters undermines public conGdence in fair governance. (C) The petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court well before the expiry of the select list dated 11.05.2023, which, under Rule 19.2 of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Rules, 2014, remains valid only up to 10.05.2024. If appointments are not issued before this date, the petitioners’ hard-earned selection would lapse irretrievably. It is a settled legal position as held in Ashok Kumar v. State of A.P., Harish Chandra v. State of U.P., and reiterated in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, that once a select list expires, Courts are powerless to compel appointments even where delays are not attributable to the candidates. This reinforces the urgent need for expeditious judicial intervention to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners place reliance upon the decisions in the matter of Rajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Md. Kalimuddin v. State of Bihar, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once a candidate is selected, the State must act reasonably and within a reasonable time frame to issue appointments, in the matter of 31 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Chopra, where the Court recognized the right of selected candidates to appointment against existing vacancies, in the matter of Ishwar Sharan Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, WA No. 92/2013, where this Court held that denial of appointment on the ground of expiration of list is unconstitutional when the delay was attributable to the State. (D) It is contended by learned counsel for the respective petitioners/respondents herein that although inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, as held in Shankarsan Dash, the State remains under a constitutional and legal duty to act fairly, reasonably, and in a non-discriminatory manner. The petitioners, having emerged successful through a transparent and competitive process, have acquired a legitimate expectation that their selection would culminate in appointment unless there are compelling and individualized reasons to deny the same. Even assuming (without admitting) that the respondents’ apprehensions regarding the pending investigation are well- founded, it is submitted that a more balanced approach could 32 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters have been adopted by issuing conditional or provisional appointment orders to the petitioners, subject to the outcome of the inquiry. Such an equitable solution would protect the petitioners’ rights while safeguarding the interests of the State. The failure of the respondents to adopt such a course underscores the arbitrariness and mala Gdes of their action. Many petitioners belong to reserved categories such as Scheduled Castes and OBCs and face no superior claimants in their respective categories. Denying them appointments undermines the constitutional mandate of adequate representation. Furthermore, with the select list for Chhattisgarh Civil Services Examination-2022 already notiGed, any appointments from the subsequent batch before resolving the petitioners’ claims would gravely prejudice their seniority and career prospects. The arbitrary withholding of appointment orders has inIicted severe mental agony, Gnancial hardship, and irreparable harm to the petitioners, many of whom made signiGcant personal and Gnancial sacriGces to succeed in the examination. The prolonged uncertainty surrounding their careers violates their right to 33 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters live with dignity under Article 21. (E) The non-issuance of appointments also adversely aCects public interest by leaving key administrative posts vacant, thereby hampering governance and service delivery to citizens. Issuing appointment orders would not only vindicate the petitioners’ rights but also serve the larger public interest. The respondents appear to have misapplied or misunderstood the interim order in WPPIL No. 81/2023, which only advised caution in making appointments pending inquiry and did not mandate a complete freeze on all appointments. The blanket suspension of all appointments, without distinguishing between tainted and untainted candidates, is an unwarranted overreach and contrary to the spirit of the interim directions. In light of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith issue appointment orders to the petitioners prior to the expiry of the select list dated 11.05.2023 and; In the alternative, direct that the petitioners be provisionally appointed subject to the outcome of the ongoing investigation. 34 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 11. The present matter revolves around the issuance of appointment orders following the Chhattisgarh State Civil Services Examination (CSCS), 2021, conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC). The crux of the dispute lies in the arbitrary withholding of appointment orders to petitioners who have been meritoriously selected in the recruitment process, despite their compliance with all procedural and legal formalities. The backdrop of the case is complex, involving serious allegations of corruption and manipulation in the recruitment process, which have resulted in an ongoing criminal investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The petitioners, however, seek relief based on their individual merits and absence of any speciGc allegations against them, arguing that their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India have been infringed due to the inaction on the part of the State. 35 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters 12. The CGPSC, a constitutional body established under Article 315 of the Constitution, discharged its statutory duty by conducting the recruitment process in a transparent, fair, and timely manner in accordance with the CGPSC Rules of Procedure, 2014 (as amended). The Gnal select list was duly published on 11.05.2023 within the prescribed validity period, thereby marking the successful culmination of the role of Commission in the recruitment process. The role of the CGPSC is, by statutory design, conGned to conducting examinations, preparing merit lists, and forwarding the select lists to the appropriate Government Departments for further action such as issuance of appointment orders and posting. The mandate of Public Service Commission is clear, and no evidence suggests that it deviated from or faltered in its constitutional duties. Therefore, no relief is warranted against the CGPSC, and any grievance the petitioners may have regarding appointment delays is properly directed at the State government. 13. The State Government has taken a decision to withhold the appointment orders of selected candidates because of the 36 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters enquiry of the CBI to the allegation of systematic corruption and nepotism in the recruitment process. 14. The involvement of Central Bureau of Investigation underscores the magnitude and institutional sensitivity of the matter. Given that the investigation remains ongoing and the charge sheet implicates senior oEcials, including the then Chairman of CGPSC. The petitioners’ grievance is that they alone are being penalized despite having no individual allegations against them, raises a compelling point on the principles of discrimination, arbitrariness, fairness, transparency, natural justice, and constitutional safeguards. The blanket embargo of State on issuance of appointment orders to all candidates from the 2021 recruitment, while allowing other candidates from the same notiGcation in diCerent posts to be appointed, gives rise to a discriminatory and arbitrary approach. The denial of appointment to petitioners who secured top ranks, particularly in key categories such as Deputy Collector and Deputy Superintendent of Police, without any individualized inquiry or tangible basis, violates the equal protection of laws 37 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters guaranteed under Article 14 and the right to equality of opportunity in public employment guaranteed by Article 16. The withholding of issuance of appointment order cannot be justiGed merely on the basis of the ongoing investigation into the allegation against other candidates or oEcials. Moreover, the petitioners’ legitimate expectation of appointment is Grmly grounded in the settled principles of administrative law and constitutional jurisprudence. Having cleared a rigorous, merit-based selection process conducted by an independent constitutional authority, the petitioners have acquired a vested right to be appointed unless valid and speciGc reasons warrant otherwise. The expiry of the validity of select list (11.05.2023 to 10.05.2024) looms large as an existential threat to the petitioners’ service prospects, as the failure to appoint within this period may render their selection futile and irretrievable. 15. The learned Single Judge has considered the argument advanced by learned State counsel against provisional or conditional appointments, citing administrative complications 38 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters and the risk of later reversals, and carefully scrutinized the issue involved. 16. When the candidates appeared in a recruitment process bonaGdely and after publication of select list, non issuance of appointment order only because of pendency of an enquiry, violates the equal protection of law guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. At the same time the balance approach is warranted by safeguarding the interest of State in preserving the institutional integrity also. The provisional appointments subject to outcome of ongoing investigations are legally recognized as a pragmatic solutions which have been adopted by various public service commission when recruitment dispute arose. This approach does not prejudiced the investigation but protects the petitioners from irreparable harm caused by indeGnite delay. Hence the learned Single Judge rightly scrutinized the claim of the writ petitioners and by balance, directed the State to issue appointment order with conditions that (i) to proceed with issuance of appointment letters to those candidates who are not named in the charge sheets Gled by the CBI and against whom no 39 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters adverse material presently exists, (ii) the said direction aims to strike a balance between safeguarding the rights of innocent candidates and preserving the interest of State in ensuring a fair and lawful recruitment process, (iii) such appointments shall be expressly subject to the outcome of the ongoing CBI investigation, (iv) to include a clear and unambiguous clause in the appointment orders stipulating that any adverse Gndings emerging in the future pursuant to the FIR or investigation may lead to appropriate legal action, (including) but not limited to termination of service & (v) the appointment letters shall state explicitly that the issuance of appointment should not be construed as conclusive proof of innocence or permanent protection from any allegation that may arise in the course of the investigation. 17. On 14.10.2025, the present batch of matters were heard, and on the request of learned Additional Advocate General Shri Y.S. Thakur, it was posted for today to enable him to apprise this Court regarding the status report of the further investigation being conducted into the role of other candidates and oEcials of the CGPSC. 40 WA No.730 of 2025 and other connected matters 18. Today, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the CBI is unable to specify any deadline for completion of the investigation in the present case. It is, however, admitted that no involvement of the writ petitioners has been found till date. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge has duly taken care of the situation by directing that the appointment letters be issued to the selected writ petitioners subject to the outcome of the CBI investigation. 19. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suCers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we Gnd that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition. 20. The writ appeals, being devoid of merits, are accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib/Gowri