1 2025:CGHC:59907-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 908 of 2025 Yogesh Kumar S/o Surajlal Aged About 21 Years R/o Village And Post Puri Tahshil Charama District Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Minister Of Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Superintendent Of Police District Kanker Chhattisgarh 3. The Director Of Police Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Kishore Kumar S/o Deendayal Aged About 33 Years C/o The Superintendent Of Police District Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Tikashwar Prasad Kaushik, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Sagar Soni, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.12.11 11:00:46 +0530 2 Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 10.12.2025 1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 7031 of 2019 by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioner. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Division Bench be pleased to allow the writ appeal and set aside the order dated 05-08-2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Learned Single Judge in WPS No.7031/2019 and further please to direct the respondent 1 to 3 for appointing the petitioner in the post of Constable (GD) in OBC category, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case in nutshell is that respondent authorities published advertisement dated 04.06.2016 for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in various Districts of Bastar Division, in which District Kanker was also involved, wherein total 104 posts of Constable (GD) was to be recruited. Out of which 11 posts were reserved for OBC Category (non creamy layer). The appellant also participated in the OBC category in the said recruitment process, in which various physical tests were conducted coupled with 3 written examination. However, he was not selected despite obtaining higher marks than respondent No. 4 which was challenged before the learned Single Bench which was dismissed. Thus, this appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 07.08.2025 and the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “ XXX 8. Perusal of Selection list of OBC category Annexure P/7, Selection list and Waiting list of all category Annexure P/2 and Merit list Annexure P/9, shows that petitioner had obtained total 136 marks, whereas, the private respondent No.4/Kishore Kumar had obtained total 132 marks, thus, total marks of the petitioner is higher than the private respondent No.4/Kishore Kumar, but as per the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents and advertisement Clause-2, 25% posts were reserved for the Home Guard. The Selection list and Waiting list of all category Annexure P/2 and perusal of Selection list of OBC category Annexure P/7, shows that selection of private respondent No. 4 was made in the category of Home Guard for which total 25% posts were reserved as per the advertisement against which 3 candidates 4 were selected in the category of Home Guard by rounding of the percentage for the reserve post of Home Guard. 9. Having considered aforesaid facts, it is clear that though petitioner had obtained higher total marks than private respondent No.4, but selection of private respondent No.4 was made in the reserve category of Home Guard, hence, his selection is not found to be against the applicable rules and advertisement. 10. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the Selection list and Waiting list of all category (Annexure P/2) prepared by the respondent authority. Therefore, no merit is found in the instant petition. 11. Consequently, this petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in OBC category as per Selection List of OBC category, 11 candidates were selected, from whom private respondent No.4/Kisohre Kumar in OBC category had obtained total marks 132, whereas, the appellant who had also participated in OBC category obtained total marks 136. Despite that the private respondent No.4 was selected by playing pick and choose manner. He further submits that since appellant had obtained higher marks than the private 5 respondent No.4, therefore, selection of private respondent No.4 was illegal, hence, he prayed that the appelant be selected in the OBC category for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD). He further prays that the appeal be allowed and the order passed by learned Single Judge be set aside. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and contends that the advertisement in question was issued for filling 104 posts of Constable (GD) in District Kanker for the Recruitment Year 2016, comprising UR-17, ST-62, SC-14, and OBC (Non-Creamy Layer)-11 vacancies. As per Government instructions, 10% horizontal and division-wise reservation was provided for Ex-servicemen, 25% for Nagar Sainik, and 10% for women candidates. The entire recruitment process was duly conducted by the Selection Committee, and the Selection and Waiting Lists were prepared accordingly. It is submitted that the appellant had applied under the OBC category and was placed at Serial No.1 in the OBC Waiting List. Although respondent No.4/Kishore Kumar secured 132 marks, which is less than the appellant’s 136 marks, he was selected under the reserved Home Guard quota. Therefore, the appellant cannot claim selection solely on the basis of higher marks. It is further urged that the recruitment process was carried out strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and the terms of the 6 advertisement, and no illegality or infirmity exists therein. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 also supports the submission made by learned State counsel. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 9. Having considered the rival submissions and upon careful perusal of the advertisement, the applicable rules, and the Selection and Waiting Lists placed on record, we find no substance in the contention of the appellant. It is an admitted position that respondent No.4 was not selected against the OBC (NCL) vacancies on the basis of general merit, but was appointed under the separately carved-out 25% Home Guard quota, which is a permissible horizontal reservation expressly stipulated in the advertisement. The appellant, though securing higher marks, cannot claim displacement of a candidate selected under a different reserved category to which he does not belong nor under which he had applied. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the recruitment process was conducted strictly in accordance with the notified procedure and that no illegality or arbitrariness has been demonstrated by the appellant. We find ourselves in full agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge. 7 10. Further, 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. 11. 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