1 2026:CGHC:8308 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1657 of 2023 Jitendra Singh Thakur S/o Shri Bharat Singh Thakur, Aged About 43 Years R/o Near Hari Om Provision Store, Maitri Nagar, Raipura Chowk Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department of Power, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited Through The Managing Director, Head Quarter Danganiya, Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Through The Managing Director, Head Quarter Danganiya, Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy General Manager (H/R), II, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company, Head Quarter Danganiya, Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Chetna Sahu Office Assistant Grade - II, Executive Director, (S & P), State Load Dispatch Centre Building, CSPTCL Danganiya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - Kushma Yadav Office Assistant Grade - II, CSPTCL West - Zone City Division, Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur, District - Ambikapur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.23 19:00:53 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Ms. Shradha Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate For Respondents No.2 to 6 : None, despite service of notice. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 16.02.2026 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner calls in question the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 03.07.2014 issued by respondent No. 4 whereby respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have been appointed instead of petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 03.07.2014 (ANNEXURE P/1), issued by respondent No. 4, to the extent it relates to respondent no.4 & 5 and further be pleased to direct the respondents give appointment/promotion to the petitioner from 03.07.2014 with all consequential benefits including seniority and financial benefits, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3 2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the petitioner was initially appointed on a Class-IV post under respondent No. 2 Company vide order dated 29.10.2009. Thereafter, as a Class-IV technical employee, the petitioner continuously discharged his duties in the field with utmost sincerity and dedication. Owing to exigencies of work, he was often required to work even on holidays and remained primarily stationed outside the office, due to which he could not remain fully apprised of official records and proceedings in detail. On 07.02.2014, the respondent Company issued an advertisement/circular for conducting a departmental examination for appointment to 16 Class-III posts. Being eligible and qualified, the petitioner participated in the said selection process. The selection was to be based on a written examination and typing test, after which a merit list was to be prepared in accordance with law, reflecting marks obtained by candidates and application of the reservation policy of the State, including horizontal and compartment-wise reservations. 3. However, no detailed merit list disclosing the marks obtained by candidates or the categories under which they were selected was ever published. Instead, only an appointment order containing the names of 16 selected candidates was issued. In absence of knowledge of his marks, the petitioner bona fide presumed that he had not been successful in the examination on account of being less meritorious. Initially posted at Bilaspur, the petitioner was subsequently transferred to Raipur in the year 2021, where he 4 came into contact with other candidates who had participated in the 2014 departmental examination. Through proceedings under the Right to Information Act, certain documents were procured, including the detailed merit list and information relating to the reservation applied in the said examination. Upon perusal of the detailed merit list, it was revealed that the petitioner had secured Serial No. 4 in the overall merit list, whereas respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were placed at Serial Nos. 12 and 16 respectively. Despite being lower in merit, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were granted appointment to Class-III posts by extending the benefit of women reservation to them. 4. It is pleaded that out of the total 16 posts advertised, 5 posts were earmarked for the unreserved category. Thirty percent horizontal reservation for women applied to 5 posts would mathematically work out to 1.5 posts, meaning thereby only one post could have been filled under the Unreserved Women category. However, two women candidates, namely respondent Nos. 5 and 6, were appointed in the Unreserved category by extending benefit of women reservation, which is contrary to the applicable reservation policy. As per the policy governing horizontal and compartment- wise reservation for women under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 (for short, ‘Rules of 1997’), a woman candidate belonging to a reserved category who does not secure selection on merit in the unreserved category cannot be adjusted against an unreserved 5 women slot and must be considered against her respective reserved category. In the present case, respondent No. 5, namely Chetna Sahu, belonging to OBC (Women) category, was extended benefit of women reservation in the unreserved category and treated as selected against an unreserved women post despite not being entitled by merit. Further, since only one post was available under the Unreserved Women category, respondent No. 6 could not have been appointed against the said category under any circumstance. 5. Thus, the application of women reservation in the present case is wholly illegal, arbitrary and in complete violation of the provisions of the applicable Rules of 1997. Consequently, the appointments granted to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are liable to be set aside, and the petitioner, being placed at Serial No. 4 in the merit list, is entitled to be appointed to the Class-III post from the date on which other candidates were appointed, i.e., 03.07.2014. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 03.07.2014 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent is arbitrary, unreasonable, unauthorized, unwarranted, illegal, unjust, discriminatory and mala fide, and is thus hit by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the application of the women reservation policy in the departmental examination of 2014 is wholly illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Rules, 1997. Consequently, the 6 appointment/promotion granted to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. The petitioner, having secured Serial No. 4 in the overall merit list, is entitled to be appointed/promoted to the Class-III post from the date on which other candidates were appointed/promoted, i.e., 03.07.2014. 7. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner, being a Class-IV technical employee, was continuously posted in the field and was engaged in discharge of his duties with utmost sincerity, often even on holidays due to administrative exigencies. Owing to his field posting, he could not remain fully aware of the internal proceedings and official documents relating to the departmental selection. It is argued that though the advertisement dated 07.02.2014 clearly stipulated that the selection would be based on written and typing examinations followed by preparation of a merit list reflecting marks and application of horizontal and compartment-wise reservation, no such detailed merit list was initially published. Instead, only a list of selected candidates was issued without disclosing their marks or the categories under which they were selected. In absence of such disclosure, the petitioner bona fide believed that he had not secured sufficient marks. It is only after his transfer to Raipur in 2021 that, through information obtained under the Right to Information Act, the detailed merit list and the manner of reservation applied were brought to light. The said merit list clearly demonstrates that the 7 petitioner was placed at Serial No. 4 in overall merit, whereas respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were placed at Serial Nos. 12 and 16 respectively, yet they were granted appointment by extending benefit of women reservation. 8. Learned counsel submits that out of the total 16 posts (including 3 backlog posts of ST category), only 5 posts were earmarked for the unreserved category. Thirty percent horizontal reservation for women out of 5 posts would mathematically amount to 1.5 posts, which in law could only be treated as one post. However, two women candidates were appointed against the unreserved category by extending the benefit of women reservation, which is in clear contravention of the applicable reservation policy. It is further submitted that as per the principles governing horizontal and compartment-wise reservation for women, if a reserved category woman candidate does not secure selection on merit in the unreserved category, she cannot be adjusted against an unreserved women slot and must be counted against her own reserved category. In the present case, respondent No. 5, Chetna Sahu, an OBC (Woman) candidate, was granted benefit of women reservation in the unreserved category despite not qualifying on merit therein. Since only one post was available for Unreserved Women category, respondent No. 6 could not have been appointed/promoted against such category in any circumstance. It is pointed out that even in subsequent advertisements, including advertisement dated 03.01.2023 issued 8 by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, fractional reservation (1.5 out of 5) was treated as one post only for the purpose of women reservation in the unreserved category. Further, the respondent- State itself issued circular dated 14.07.2017 directing that posts for women reservation are to be calculated on integer basis and not by rounding off fractional figures. It is further contended that once the foundational action is illegal, all consequential actions flowing therefrom are vitiated. An order illegal from its inception cannot be validated by lapse of time. The action of the respondents, in effecting such appointments/promotions in violation of the reservation policy, amounts to a fraud on the rules, and it is a settled principle that fraud vitiates all proceedings. 9. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that out of five unreserved posts, two women candidates have been appointed by extending the benefit of 30% women reservation. It is contended that 30% of 5 comes to 1.5 and, in view of the judgment of this Court in WPS No. 599 of 2005 decided on 16.11.2005, as well as the Circular dated 14.07.2017 issued by the General Administration Department, the principle of rounding off is not applicable while computing reservation for women. Therefore, at best only one post could have been filled by a woman candidate out of the five unreserved posts. It is further submitted that the petitioner, being next in order of merit at Serial No. 4, is entitled to promotion with effect from 03.07.2014. As such, it is prayed that the impugned action deserves to be 9 quashed and the petitioner be granted appointment with all consequential benefits. 10. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the impugned order dated 03.07.2014 does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness and the departmental examination conducted in the year 2014 was carried out strictly in accordance with the applicable Rules and reservation policy in force at the relevant time. It is contended that the benefit of horizontal reservation for women was extended in accordance with the prescribed norms and after due verification of eligibility and category of the candidates. The appointments granted to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were made after following the due process of selection and, therefore, the same cannot be termed as illegal or discriminatory. 11. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner, having participated in the selection process without any objection, cannot now challenge the same after an inordinate delay of several years. The petition suffers from delay and laches, as the selection and appointments were made in the year 2014, whereas the present petition has been filed much later. On this ground alone, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also argued that the reliance placed by the petitioner on subsequent circulars or advertisements is misconceived, as the selection in question is to be tested on the basis of the rules and policy prevalent at the 10 relevant time in 2014. Therefore, no interference is called for, and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. None appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 despite service of notice. 13. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents annexed along with the writ petition. 14. From perusal of the advertisement/circular dated 07.02.2014, it clearly transpires that 16 posts of Office Assistant Class-III were notified by respondent No.2. The break-up of posts was as follows: 5 posts for Unreserved category, 2 for Scheduled Caste, 7 for Scheduled Tribe and 2 for Other Backward Classes (Non- Creamy Layer). The selection was to be based upon written examination and typing test, and a joint merit list was thereafter to be prepared. 15. The petitioner, belonging to the Unreserved category, participated in the selection process and secured 104.30 marks out of 150. As per the joint merit list placed on record, his roll number 1075 finds place at Serial No.4 in the overall merit. The grievance of the petitioner is founded upon the premise that since he stood at Serial No.4 and five posts were available in the Unreserved category, he ought to have been appointed. Instead, respondent Nos. 5 and 6, who secured 94.13 and 91.70 marks respectively, were appointed by extending the benefit of 30% horizontal reservation for women. 11 16. The principal issue, therefore, revolves around the manner of application of horizontal reservation for women and whether the same was in consonance with the applicable Rules and Government policy. 17. From perusal of the record as well as the circular dated 14.07.2017 issued by the General Administration Department, it appears that 30% horizontal reservation for women candidates was applicable across categories. Horizontal reservation, by its very nature, operates within each vertical category and is to be adjusted against the posts earmarked for that category. It is now well settled that horizontal reservation is to be implemented by first filling up posts in order of merit and thereafter ensuring that the prescribed percentage of women candidates is accommodated within the respective category by way of adjustment. 18. In the present case, out of five posts in the Unreserved category, 30% reservation for women would entitle consideration of women candidates within that category. The respondents have placed material on record to demonstrate that the roster was operated and that women candidates in the Unreserved category were adjusted in accordance with the applicable policy then prevailing. Respondent No.5, though belonging to OBC (Non-Creamy Layer), and respondent No.6, belonging to General category, were 12 considered for appointment under the women quota within their respective entitlement in the roster framework. 19. It is significant to note that horizontal reservation does not necessarily mean that only the top-ranking candidates in the overall merit list will be appointed, if such appointment would defeat the mandated percentage of reservation. A candidate higher in overall merit cannot claim an indefeasible right to appointment unless he demonstrates that the reservation roster has been operated in violation of statutory provisions. Mere placement at Serial No.4 in the joint merit list does not, ipso facto, create a vested right to appointment in absence of proof that roster points were misapplied. 20. The petitioner has placed reliance upon subsequent circulars and subsequent advertisements to contend that fractional reservation ought to have been treated as one post only. However, the legality of a selection process must be tested strictly on the basis of the policy and rules prevailing at the time of recruitment. Subsequent clarifications or administrative instructions cannot retrospectively invalidate a completed selection unless the original action was per se contrary to statutory provisions. 21. Furthermore, the appointments in question were made on 03.07.2014, whereas the petitioner has approached this Court after a substantial lapse of time. The selection process stood concluded long back and the appointed candidates have been 13 discharging their duties for several years. In service jurisprudence, interference after long delay is strongly discouraged, particularly when third-party rights have crystallized. The petitioner, having participated in the process without protest and having remained silent for years, cannot now seek to unsettle a concluded selection unless glaring illegality is established. 22. On holistic consideration of the record, it does not appear that the respondents have acted arbitrarily or in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The material available indicates that the roster was applied and that respondent Nos.5 and 6 were appointed as women candidates within the framework of horizontal reservation. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the reservation policy was misapplied in a manner contrary to binding statutory provisions. 23. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that no illegality, arbitrariness or infirmity has been committed by the respondents in issuing the impugned order dated 03.07.2014 or in appointing respondent Nos.5 and 6. 24. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh