1 2025:CGHC:20626-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 295 of 2025 Manish Kumar Meshram S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Meshram aged about 27 Years R/o Shitala Nagar Govindpur Kanker PO Govindpur P.S. Kanker Tahsil and District - North Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Agriculture Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary Shankar Nagar Road Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Controller of Exam Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary Shankar Nagar Road Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Narad Bhardwaj, aged about 27 years through The Secretary Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission District - Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Rakesh Kumar Joshi, aged about 30 years through The Secretary Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Samiksha Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate For Respondent Nos.2&3/PSC : Mr. Pratik Vishwakarma holding brief of Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06 . 05 .202 5 1. Heard Ms. Samiksha Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sangharh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Pratik Vishwakarma holding brief of Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 & 3/ PSC on I.A. No. 01 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 158 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the said application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was writ petitioner in WP(S) No. 2659 of 2014, has challenged the order dated 25.09.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Caste category. An advertisement was issued on 22.12.2012 for 78 posts of Assistant Director (Agriculture) by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission. Out of 78 posts, 33 posts were kept for the unreserved category, 9 posts for the Scheduled Caste category, 25 posts were reserved for the Scheduled Tribes category and 11 posts for the O.B.C. category. The last date for submission of the 3 online application was 29.01.2013. The petitioner had the requisite qualifications; therefore, he submitted his application for the said post, but in the absence of a verified social status certificate he participated in the recruitment process as a member of the unreserved category. A written examination was scheduled on 29.09.2013. Admit card was issued to the petitioner and other eligible candidates by the PSC and the result was declared on 27.05.2014. The petitioner qualified for the written examination and he was called for the interview. He participated in the interview. The PSC declared the final result on 27.05.2014, wherein the petitioner found his name on the wait list at serial No. 17 under the unreserved category. For the first time, the petitioner moved an application on 11.09.2013 to treat his candidature as a member of the Scheduled Caste category, and therefore, by filing WPS No. 2659 of 2014, the petitioner has claimed that he may be declared as a candidate of the Scheduled Caste category and the last candidate selected against the post reserved for the Scheduled Caste category may be replaced by him. 6. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 25.09.2024. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant / writ petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is an ex-parte order and while passing the said order, the learned 4 Single Judge has failed to appreciate the grounds of the appellant pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner belongs to the category of Schedule caste and on the date of interview when he was suppose to have the caste certificate he was duly possessing the same. The petitioner was bonafide and the same was reflected by his conduct as on the filling of application appellant did not possess the caste certificate issued by the Caste scrutiny committee which was mandate condition as per the advertisement hence while filling application he did not mention his caste as Schedule Caste. The appellant after issuance of notification dated 29.06.2013 by the GAD, whereby the pre-condition of having Caste Certificate by the Caste Scrutiny Committee was waived off, petitioner possessing the certificate wrote representation to be considered his as the Schedule Caste candidate however to head to any of his representation was paid by the respondents. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for respective respondents oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein, in which no interference is called for. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 5 10. From perusal of the impugned order and materials available on record, it transpires that in pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent/CG PSC on 22.12.2012, though the appellant has submitted his on-line application as a member of unreserved category for the post of Assistant Director (Agriculture) in the absence of a verified Social Status Certificate and before the issuance of the admit card for written examination, no request was made for a change of category and the petitioner participated in the written examination and interview without any objection and for the first time an application was moved for correction of social status was moved by the petitioner on 11.09.2013. It further transpires that there was a condition in the advertisement itself and according to condition No. 5, the candidates were permitted to rectify the mistakes that occurred in the application from 30.01.2013 to 08.02.2013 and during that period, no effort was made by the petitioner to rectify the mistake. The petitioner participated in the written examination, and thereafter, in the interview and when he found his name on the waiting list at serial No. 17 under the unreserved category, he filed the writ petition before this Court petition on 03.06.2014. Thus, the learned Single Judge, after considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case and relying upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madan Lal vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486, wherein in the similar fact and situation it has been held that a candidate who consciously 6 took part in the process of selection cannot turn around finding the decision unpalatable and question the method of selection, has dismissed the writ petition. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra