1 2025:CGHC:51833-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 754 of 2025 1. Daulat Ram Sahu S/o Bodhwa Ram Sahu, Aged About 28 Years R/o H No. 108, Rajimkumhi, Post Kirwayi, District Gariyaband (C.G.) 2. Rupesh Kumar Ratnakar S/o Shri Ram Gopal Ratnakar, Aged About 27 Years R/o Gram Madwa, Ward No. 65, Post Matiya, Tehsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Additional Director General Of Police, (Recruitment And Selection), Block No. 4, Sector 19, Phq, Near Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Superintendent Of Police, (Raipur), Chairman Selection Committee, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5. Superintendent Gariyaband, Gariyaband (C.G.) Of Police, District Gaiyaband (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, Advocates For State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.10.17 16:49:40 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 17.10.2025 1. The appellant/petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 6540 of 2021, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/ writ petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the writ Court. 2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner in writ petition is that the respondent authorities issued an advertisement on 29.12.2017 for filling up posts of 'Constable (Driver)' for various districts. The petitioners submitted their application forms for District Gariyaband and participated in the written examination and physical ability test. They were found eligible. Complaints were made against the selection of the petitioners and other candidates. Consequently, a committee was constituted to inquire into the matter. The allegations with regard to irregularities in the Trade Skill Test for the posts of Constable (Driver) were found true, and therefore, a decision was taken by the Superintendent of Police, Gariyaband, to cancel the entire recruitment process, and that decision has been affirmed by the Inspector General of Police. Thereafter, the 3 petitioner preferred writ petition before the Single Bench which was also dismissed. Thus, this appeal. 3. The Learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties passed the following orders:- “4. It is well-settled principle of law that no person can claim fundamental right to appointment. The selected candidate cannot claim right to appointment if the State has cogent and general grounds for not making appointment. 5. In the matter of State of Assam and others vs Arabinda Rabha and others, passed in Civil Appeal No.2350 of 2025 decided on 07.03.2025, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that aspirants, not having an indefeasible or vested right of appointment, do not also have the right to question any decision adverse to their interest affecting achievement of their goals to secure public employment and if such decision must not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or the whims of the decision maker. The relevant para 54 is reproduced herein below : “54. Any decision taken not to appoint despite there being vacancies and a valid select list, obviously, is in the nature of a policy decision. It has to be borne in mind 4 that securing public employment is the dream of many, who put their heart and soul to prepare for it. Nowadays, aspirants undertake rigorous study sessions as well as training modules to equip themselves, which also comes at a heavy cost. That apart, since every process of recruitment necessarily involves substantial expenses which are borne from the public exchequer and at the same time the aspirants for the posts (who, as per their own estimation, have performed sufficiently well and therefore stand a good chance of being appointed upon figuring in the select list) cherish fond hopes of a bright and secure future, the law is clear that the policy decision not to carry the process forward must be taken bona fide, there has to be justifiable reason if the (2019) 12 SCC 798 process is abandoned mid-way, and such decision must not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or the whims of the decision maker. This acts as a check on the employer’s power deciding against not making any appointment from the select list despite availability of vacancy/vacancies on the advertised/notified public post(s). A writ court may, upon reaching the requisite satisfaction, intervene in such manner and make such directions as the facts and circumstances warrant. We, therefore, do not find it acceptable that the aspirants, not having an indefeasible or vested right of appointment, do not also have the right to question any decision adverse to their interest affecting achievement of their goals to secure public employment. Whether, and to what extent, any relief should be 5 granted, must depend on the facts of each case.” 6. Considering the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arabinda Rabha (supra), I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent authorities. 7. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s)” 4. The writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner reiterating the same plea challenging the order dated 13.08.2025 passed in WPS No. 6540 of 2021. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the petitioners participated in the Trade Skill Test for five posts of Constable (Driver) and they were duly selected but the Superintendent of Police without assigning reason, cancelled the entire recruitment contrary to the Chhattisgarh Police Executive Force, Constable (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007 (for short ‘the Rules of 2007’). He also submits that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner and prays that orders issued by the Superintendent of Police and approved by the Inspector General of Police dated 17.09.2021 & 11.10.2021 may be quashed. 6 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made. He would submit that recruitment process for selection of drivers in the district Gariyaband was cancelled by the Superintendent of Police and it was approved by the Inspector General of Police. He would further submit that various complaints were received and an inquiry was conducted and in the inquiry, the allegations were found proved and therefore, the decision was taken by the competent authority in accordance with law. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Surinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in 1997(8) SCC 488 and the matter of State of Orissa and another vs. Rajkishore Nanda and others, reported in 2010(6) SCC 777. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 8. Upon careful consideration of the facts and submissions made by the parties, this Court finds no infirmity in the decision of the respondent authorities by which the recruitment process for the posts of Constable (Driver) in District Gariyaband has been cancelled. It is undisputed that the petitioners participated in the Trade Skill Test and were found eligible; however, multiple complaints regarding irregularities in the selection process were received, prompting the competent authority to constitute an 7 inquiry committee. The inquiry conclusively found the allegations of misconduct and procedural irregularities to be true. In such circumstances, the Superintendent of Police, acting within the ambit of his statutory and administrative powers, rightly exercised discretion to cancel the entire recruitment to preserve the sanctity and fairness of the selection process. This decision was duly approved by the Inspector General of Police, reinforcing its validity. 9. The petitioners’ reliance on the Chhattisgarh Police Executive Force, Constable (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007 does not override the State’s responsibility to ensure transparency and propriety in public employment. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Assam vs. Arabinda Rabha (2025), candidates do not have an indefeasible or vested right to appointment; the State’s decision to abandon or cancel recruitment must be bona fide, non-arbitrary, and supported by justifiable reasons. The inquiry in the present case provides ample justification, removing any element of arbitrariness or malafide. Further, reliance on precedents such as Surinder Singh (supra) & Rajkishore Nanda (supra) underscores the principle that where irregularities taint the recruitment process, the State is empowered and duty-bound to intervene and protect the public interest, even if it adversely affects individual candidates. Given these settled principles and the facts of the case, interference with the 8 cancellation order is neither warranted nor justified. 10. Considering the facts of the present case and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. 11. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti