1 2026:CGHC:4259 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 918 of 2023 1 - Smt. Yogita Verma D/o Shri Omprakash Verma Aged About 31 Years R/o House No. 282, Sector-1, Road No. 6, Professor Colony, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Raipur Raipur, Seed Bhawan, G.E. Road, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Yashraj Verma, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 23/01/2026 1. The present writ petition is being filed seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to consider and decide the petitioner's objection/ representation (Annexure P/4) within stipulated time. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to issue appointment order in favour of petitioner on the post of Mandi Inspector under her category. 10.3 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner being eligible and qualified, participated in the selection process initiated by the respondent authority. The respondent authority issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Mandi Inspector (MSI), notifying a total of 22 vacancies. Out of the said vacancies, 7 posts were reserved for female candidates, namely 3 posts for Unreserved (Female), 1 post for OBC (Female), 1 post for Scheduled Caste (Female), and 2 posts for Scheduled Tribe (Female). The petitioner belongs to the OBC category and secured 106.419 marks in the recruitment process. She stood 4th in the overall female merit list and 2nd in the OBC (Female) category, thereby legitimately expecting her selection against the reserved post meant for OBC female candidates. Subsequently, the respondent authority issued a list of selected candidates. To the surprise of the petitioner, the said list contained the names of only 18 selected candidates, despite the advertisement having notified 22 posts. Further, the list reflected selection of only one OBC candidate and failed to disclose the category-wise status of 3 the selected candidates, thereby creating ambiguity and raising serious doubts regarding the transparency of the selection process. Aggrieved by the apparent irregularities and discrepancies, the petitioner submitted an objection before the respondent authorities seeking clarification. However, no clear or satisfactory response was provided, which further strengthened the petitioner’s apprehension regarding the fairness and legality of the recruitment process. Left with no efficacious remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authority has failed to act in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement issued by itself. The recruitment process, as conducted, is contrary to the notified scheme of selection and, therefore, vitiated in law. It is further submitted that the respondent authority did not publish a complete and transparent select list along with the marks obtained by the selected candidates. Non-disclosure of marks has created serious doubt about the fairness and legality of the recruitment procedure and violates the principles of transparency and equal opportunity. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner secured second rank in the OBC (Female) category and fourth rank in the overall female merit list, yet the respondent authority has failed to disclose the marks obtained by other candidates. Such non- disclosure has deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to verify the correctness of the selection and casts a shadow on the entire 4 recruitment process. It is further submitted that despite the lapse of considerable time, the respondent authority has neither redressed the grievance raised by the petitioner nor provided any cogent explanation, thereby acting in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner. Learned counsel further submits that it appears that the respondent authority has, without any lawful justification and without conducting any proper assessment, effectively deleted the post reserved for women candidates, which is impermissible in law. It is vehemently argued that deletion of posts after conducting the examination is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Had the respondent authority adhered to the advertisement and issued a select list for all 22 posts, the petitioner would have undoubtedly been selected and appointed to the post in question. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is contended that the recruitment process was conducted strictly in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules, government instructions, and the terms of the advertisement. It is submitted that the allegation regarding non- compliance with the advertisement is wholly misconceived. The respondent authority has followed the prescribed procedure at every stage of the recruitment process, and no deviation has been made so as to cause prejudice to the petitioner or any other 5 candidate. Learned counsel further submits that the selection list was prepared on the basis of merit and availability of eligible candidates. Merely because the marks of all selected and non- selected candidates were not published along with the select list does not ipso facto render the recruitment process illegal or arbitrary. It is well settled that there is no statutory mandate requiring publication of marks unless specifically provided under the rules. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no vested or indefeasible right to appointment merely on the basis of her position in the merit list. Inclusion in a merit list does not confer an automatic right to appointment, particularly when appointments are subject to administrative exigencies and availability of posts. Learned counsel also submits that the contention regarding deletion of posts reserved for women is factually incorrect and legally untenable. The number of candidates selected was finalized after due consideration of eligibility, suitability, and fulfillment of all requisite conditions. No post was arbitrarily or mala fide deleted, and the decision to restrict the number of appointments was taken in accordance with administrative discretion and prevailing rules. It is further contended that the respondent authority duly examined the objection raised by the petitioner and found no substance therein. Mere dissatisfaction with the outcome of the selection cannot be a ground to challenge a validly conducted recruitment process. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the writ petition is based on conjectures and 6 surmises, without any concrete evidence of illegality or arbitrariness. In the absence of violation of any statutory provision or constitutional mandate, no interference is warranted by this Court, and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6. It is well settled that participation in a selection process and inclusion in a merit list does not confer an indefeasible or vested right to appointment. The appointing authority retains the discretion to fill up all or some of the advertised posts, subject to the governing rules and administrative exigencies. Unless the decision not to fill up all vacancies is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of statutory provisions, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any violation of statutory recruitment rules or any condition of the advertisement. The mere fact that fewer candidates were appointed than the number of advertised posts does not, by itself, render the selection process illegal. 7. The contention regarding deletion of posts for women candidates is not supported by any cogent material on record and remains a bald assertion. So far as the grievance relating to non-disclosure of marks and category-wise details is concerned, it is trite law that in absence of any statutory mandate requiring publication of marks, non-disclosure thereof does not vitiate the selection 7 process. The petitioner has not pointed out any rule or provision obligating the respondent authority to publish marks along with the select list. The allegation that the petitioner’s objection was not considered is also without substance. The respondent authority has specifically contended that the objection was examined and no illegality was found in the recruitment process. Mere non-acceptance of the petitioner’s claim cannot be equated with non-consideration of her representation. 8. This Court finds that the writ petition is founded on assumptions and expectations rather than enforceable legal rights. No material has been placed on record to establish arbitrariness, discrimination, mala fides, or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India so as to warrant judicial interference. Accordingly, this Court holds that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE