1 2025:CGHC:61604 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7715 of 2023 1 - Vijyasree N Nechikkatt W/o Dr. C.P. Pramod Aged About 41 Years R/o Quarter No. 26-B (P), Street No. 16, Sector-2, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health, Family Welfare And Medical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Medical Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Office At North Block, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 9117 of 2023 1 - Dr. Sushma Singh W/o Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh Aged About 41 Years R/o Quarter No. E-1, Government Engineering College Campus Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health Family Welfare And Medical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Medical Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 3 - Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Office At North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. C. J. K. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 17/12/2025 1. The writ petitions being W.P.S. Nos. 7715/2023 and 9117/2023, arise out of a common factual matrix and involve identical issues pertaining to consideration of eligible candidates from the waiting list for appointment to the post of Demonstrator in the subject of Biochemistry under the Department of Medical Education. In view of this commonality, the petitions were clubbed, heard together, and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions have prayed for following reliefs : “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for the post of Demonstrator for the subject of Biochemistry from the waiting list of UR category published on 30.03.2022 by the respondent No.3 in pursuance to the letter issued by the respondent No.1 on 12.09.2023 (in 3 W.P.S. No. 7715/2023) and 11.10.2023 (in W.P.S. No. 9117/2023) 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to send the name of candidates of waiting list for the post Demonstrator in the subject Biochemistry to the respondent No.1. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 3. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners in these writ petitions, are that the grievance raised pertains to non- consideration of eligible wait-listed candidates for appointment, despite availability of vacant posts and repeated judicial directions. Pursuant to an advertisement issued for appointment to the post of Demonstrator in the subject of Biochemistry, the petitioners duly applied and participated in the selection process. The Public Service Commission issued a merit list on 30.03.2022 comprising 17 candidates. The petitioners were placed in the waiting list under the Unreserved (UR) category, one petitioner being at Serial No. 5 and the other at Serial No. 8 in the said waiting list. After issuance of the merit list, several selected candidates either failed to appear for document verification or did not join the post. In particular, candidates at certain serial numbers did not appear for document verification, and the candidate at Serial No. 4 did not join. As a result, at least three 4 posts in the UR category for the post of Demonstrator (Biochemistry) remain vacant. Further, candidates placed at Serial Nos. 1 to 4 in the waiting list were offered appointment to other posts and have already joined, thereby exhausting their claim for appointment against the post in question. Aggrieved by inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioners earlier approached this Court by filing separate writ petitions, wherein directions were issued permitting submission of representations and mandating the respondent authorities to consider and decide the same expeditiously within a stipulated time. Despite submission of representations in compliance with the said orders, no effective action was taken by the respondents, compelling the petitioners to initiate contempt proceedings. In the contempt proceedings, the respondent authorities disclosed that letters had been issued by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 3 on 12.09.2023, seeking forwarding of the names of eligible waiting-list candidates. However, Respondent No. 3 failed to forward the requisite details, resulting in continued non-consideration of the petitioners for appointment. It was also communicated to the petitioners that appointment orders would be issued once the selection list was received from Respondent No. 3, but no such appointment orders have been issued till date. Despite clear availability of vacant posts, eligibility of the petitioners, and repeated assurances and directions from this Court, the respondent authorities have failed to complete the appointment process from the waiting list. 5 Consequently, the petitioners, though higher in merit and otherwise eligible, continue to be arbitrarily excluded from consideration for appointment to the post of Demonstrator in the subject of Biochemistry. The continued inaction of the respondents has resulted in violation of the petitioners right to fair consideration for appointment, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. 4. Mr. C. J. K. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the action of the respondent authorities is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and malafide, being in clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel reiterated that the constitutional mandate of equality of opportunity in public employment extends throughout the entire recruitment process, from issuance of the advertisement till the issuance of appointment orders and joining of selected candidates. Any arbitrary conduct at the final stage of appointment defeats the very purpose of a fair selection process. Learned counsel contended that despite the availability of vacancies, the respondents are deliberately not filling up the posts of Demonstrator in the subject of Biochemistry, thereby depriving the petitioners of their rightful consideration. Such inaction on the part of the respondents amounts to denial of equal treatment and fair consideration under the law. It was also pointed out that the validity period of the waiting list is nearing its expiry. In view of the subsisting vacancies and the pendency caused solely due to the inaction of the 6 respondent authorities, the petitioners ought to have been considered and appointed well within time. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are fully qualified and eligible for the post in question and, having been duly placed in the waiting list, they possess a legitimate expectation of being considered for appointment against the available vacancies. The continued refusal of the respondents to do so is unjust, arbitrary, and calls for interference by this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the posts of Demonstrator in the subject of Biochemistry, for which the petitioners had applied, are still lying vacant. It was contended that this Court has already passed specific orders directing consideration of candidates from the waiting list and permitting the concurrency/operation of the waiting list. Despite such clear judicial directions, the respondent–State has failed to give effect to the same in its true letter and spirit. It was further argued that, in compliance with the directions of this Court, the State itself had called for applications and initiated steps for consideration of waiting-list candidates. However, even thereafter, the respondent authorities have acted arbitrarily by not issuing appointment orders to the eligible and meritorious waiting- list candidates, including the petitioners, though vacancies admittedly continue to exist. Learned counsel emphasized that two candidates, namely Harleen Sanghe and Suchita Danikar, who were higher in the waiting list, have already joined services on other posts. Consequently, their claim against the post of 7 Demonstrator (Biochemistry) stands exhausted, and the posts meant to be filled from the waiting list are still available. In such circumstances, denial of appointment to the petitioners is wholly unjustified and arbitrary. 5. Learned State counsel, at the outset, submitted that the respondents categorically deny all allegations of illegality, arbitrariness, or malafides levelled by the petitioners. It was contended that the entire selection and appointment process has been carried out strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, instructions, and settled principles governing public employment. It was submitted that Respondent No. 3 had issued an online advertisement bearing No. 13/2021/Exam dated 02.02.2021, published on 08.02.2021, inviting applications for several posts of Demonstrator under the Department of Medical Education. All eligibility conditions, procedure of selection, and other terms were clearly mentioned in the advertisement. Subsequently, a corrigendum dated 01.02.2022 was also issued with respect to the salary structure. Learned State counsel further submitted that the Department of Medical Education notified a total of 238 vacancies for the post of Demonstrator. Against these vacancies, 1332 applications were received. All eligible candidates were called for interview; however, 30 candidates were found ineligible and 651 candidates did not appear. Ultimately, interviews of 651 candidates were conducted between 14.03.2022 and 30.03.2022. It was contended that after completion of the interview process, 8 Respondent No. 3 prepared and issued the merit list along with the select list and waiting list on 30.03.2022, strictly on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates. The learned State counsel fairly conceded that the petitioners were placed in the waiting list under the Unreserved category, one of them being at Serial No. 5 and the other at Serial No. 8, as the case may be. Learned State counsel further submitted that it is not in dispute that 10 selected candidates did not join their respective posts within the stipulated time. Consequently, Respondent No. 1 cancelled their selections vide order dated 23.05.2023. Thereafter, by letter dated 24.05.2023, the petitioners were duly informed about the cancellation of selection of those 10 candidates and directions were sought from Respondent No. 3 for further course of action. When no response was received, a reminder letter dated 12.09.2023 was again issued to Respondent No. 3. It was further submitted that Respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 26.09.2023, granted permission to fill up six vacant posts arising out of cancellation of the selection of the aforesaid 10 candidates. It was clarified that Hemant Kumar Pandey, who was at Serial No. 1 in the Unreserved waiting list, did not join and his candidature stood cancelled, while Aayush Agrawal, at Serial No. 2 in the waiting list, had already joined at Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS), Bilaspur on 02.08.2022. Consequently, permission was granted for appointment of Harleen Sanghe, who was at Serial No. 3 in the Unreserved waiting list, and Ajay Kumar from the 9 OBC category. Learned State counsel emphasized that in view of the above sequence, Suchita Danikar, who is at Serial No. 4 in the Unreserved waiting list, would be the next eligible candidate to be considered. Only thereafter, and subject to refusal or non-joining by Harleen Sanghe or Suchita Danikar, would the case of the petitioners be considered. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 – Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (PSC) submitted that the instant writ petition is wholly misconceived and not maintainable, as no fundamental or legal right of the petitioner has been infringed by the PSC. It was submitted that a bare perusal of the reply filed by Respondent No. 1 itself clearly establishes that the PSC has already complied with the communication. In compliance thereof, the PSC duly forwarded the names of eligible candidates from the waiting list, namely Harleen Sanghe (UR category) and Ajay Kumar (OBC category), strictly in accordance with the order of merit. Therefore, the grievance raised by the petitioner against the PSC is unfounded. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners names appears at Serial No. 5 (in WPS No. 7715) / Serial No. 8 (in WPS No. 9117), as applicable, in the waiting list, whereas Suchita Danikar, whose name appears at Serial No. 4 in the Unreserved category, is still above the petitioner in the order of merit. As long as candidates senior to the petitioner in the waiting list are available and have not been exhausted, the petitioner cannot claim any right for consideration or appointment. 10 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with these petitioner with utmost circumspection. 8. The petitioners seek direction to the respondents to consider their names from the waiting list published on 30.03.2022 for the post of Demonstrator (UR category) and to forward the names of candidates from the waiting list to the department for appointment. The grievance, as projected by the petitioners, is that despite availability of vacancies arising out of cancellation of selected candidates or non-joining, the petitioners have not been considered for appointment. 9. On perusal of the pleadings, it is evident that the petitioners are duly placed in the waiting list under the Unreserved category at Serial Nos. 5 and 8 respectively, while candidates placed above them, namely Hemant Kumar Pandey (Serial No. 1), Aayush Agrawal (Serial No. 2), Harleen Sanghe (Serial No. 3), and Suchita Danikar (Serial No. 4) have already been considered, selected, or joined other posts. The Public Service Commission (PSC) has, at all times, forwarded the names from the waiting list in strict order of merit to the Department of Medical Education as and when vacancies arose. It is also not disputed that the PSC has acted in accordance with the rules, regulations, and terms of the advertisement and has not acted arbitrarily or illegally. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that vacancies still exist and that the petitioners are eligible and otherwise entitled to 11 consideration. Learned State counsel and PSC counsel, however, pointed out that the petitioners’ claim can only arise if the candidates senior to them in the waiting list have either refused the appointment or left the seats vacant. It is also noted that the department alone has the final authority to issue appointment orders, and the PSC has already complied with its mandate by forwarding the names of eligible candidates from the waiting list. 10. In view of the above facts, the Court finds that the petitioners cannot claim appointment as a matter of right at this stage. However, the petitioners’ grievance regarding fair consideration is genuine and requires verification of the present status of the vacant posts for the subject of Biochemistry. It is, therefore, appropriate to direct the concerned authorities to verify the current status of the posts and ascertain whether the candidates, including Harleen Sanghe and Suchita Danikar, have left the seats vacant or declined the appointment. 11. The respondents are directed to carry out verification of the status of all vacant posts in the subject of Biochemistry and, upon such verification, if any of the posts are found vacant due to non- joining, refusal, or resignation of candidates, the petitioners shall be considered for appointment strictly in accordance with the order of merit in the waiting list. The consideration and decision shall be taken expeditiously and in accordance with law, without any undue delay, ensuring that the principles of fairness and transparency are maintained. 12 12. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs. Sd/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE