1 2026:CGHC:95 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2442 of 2024 Reserved on : 25.11 .2025 Delivered on : 02.01.2026 • Vijay Tonder S/o Rambhajan Tonder Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Sukhatal, Post Sarangpur (Kala), Tehsil And Block Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office Rakhi, District Raipur (Cg) 2 - Commissioner, Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar (Chhattisgarh) Pin 492002 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent/P.S.C. : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. CAV ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by respondent No. 1 by which the candidature of the petitioner who was wait list candidate on the post of Assistant Professor, Computer Science has been rejected though the one post of Assistant Professor Computer Science reserved for SC candidate is lying vacant on account of non-joining by one Ram Ratan Khunte. BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2026.01.02 13:22:08 +0530 2 2. The brief facts as reflected from records are that- A) On 23.01.2019, the C.G. Public Service Commission (CGPSC) issued an advertisement for several posts including the backlog posts of Assistant Professor, Computer Science and the petitioner being qualified having requisite qualification applied for the said post on Scheduled Caste Category, final select list was issued on 30.06.2021, wherein the petitioner found place in the waiting list at Serial No. 1 in the S.C. Category. Pursuant to the said final select list, the appointment orders were issued on 21.01.2022, 22.02.2022, 26.05.2022, 08.08.2022 & 31.05.2023. B) It is submitted that one of the selected candidates namely Ram Ratan Khunte applied for the post in two streams i.e. Assistant Professor, Computer Science and Assistant Professor, Computer Application and in both the streams he got selected, therefore, he opted to choose against the post of Assistant Professor, Computer Application and preferred an application on 07.07.2023 before the respondent authorities informing that since he joined in Computer Application stream, he does not want to join on the post of Computer Science. C) The petitioner preferred a representation on 22.08.2023 before the respondent authorities stating that his name is in the waiting list at Serial No. 1 in S.C. Category and the selected candidate namely Ram Ratan Khunte has not joined the said post, therefore, he may be appointed against the post of Assistant Professor, Computer Science. The representation dated 22.08.2023 preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by respondent authorities vide order 3 dated 30.04.2024 which has been assailed by the petitioner in this petition. 3. The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission/respondent No. 3 has filed its reply mainly contending that the petitioner is claiming appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science) as he was a waiting list candidate, but the computation of the validity period of the supplementary list starts from the date of publication from the final select list i.e. 30.06.2021. It has also been contended that as per the provisions of Rule 12(3) & (7) of the Chhattisgarh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch, Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2019, only a one-time extension can be granted for extending the validity period of the select & waiting list. Accordingly, the select and supplementary list is valid only up to 30.06.2023 and till this date, there has been no communication made by the department for providing the name candidate from the waiting list. However, the petitioner submitted his representation on 22.08.2023 i.e., after expiry of the validity period of the waiting list. It has been further contended that in light of the above submissions there is no illegality or infirmity in the selection process therefore, does not call for any interference in the impugned order and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The State has filed its reply mainly contending that the petitioner and other candidates applied for appointment on the said post and the result was declared and finally on 30.06.2021 the select and waiting list was published by the respondent/CGPSC in which the respondent/CGPSC selected and recommended the name of one 4 Ram Ratan Khunte for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Application) and also on the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science) and the petitioner was placed in the waiting list at Serial No. 1 by the respondent/CGPSC. It is further contended that the respondent Department issued appointment order dated 25.03.2022 thereby appointing Shri Ram Ratan Khunte on the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Application) and pursuant to the said appointment order, Shri Ram Ratan Khunte given his joining on 05.04.2022. It is further contended that on 07.07.2023 an application was moved by Shri Ram Ratan Khunte before the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Raipur expressing his refusal for joining in the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science) and prayed for taking necessary steps for appointment in his place. 5. It is further contended that the final select and waiting list was published by the respondent/CGPSC on 30.06.2021 and as per the Chhattisgarh Lok Sewa Aayog Prakriya Niyam particularly Rule 19.2, published in official gazette of State of Chhattisgarh, the select and waiting list is valid for a period of one year and one and half years respectively as such the final select and waiting list issued by the respondent CGPSC was valid till 29.06.2022 and 29.12.2022 respectively whereas after expiry of the validity period of the said select and waiting list, Shri Ram Ratan Khunte moved refusal application on 07.07.2023 before the respondents department. It is further contended that though the said request made by Mr. Ram Ratan Khunte for refusal of joining on the post of Assistant Professor 5 (Computer Science) has been accepted and his candidature for the said post has been cancelled vide order dated 30.04.2024 but since the request/consent was made after expiry of the validity period of final select and waiting list, no action on the application was taken by the State. It is further contended that the petitioner has duly been informed about the expiry of the select and waiting list vide letter dated 30.04.2024. It is respectfully submitted that since the validity of the select and waiting list both has already expired and lost its efficacy, no appointment pursuant to the expired select and waiting list can be given to anybody including the petitioner and thus it has been prayed for dismissal of the instant petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the contentions made in the writ petition would submit that several persons have been appointed against the waiting list even in the year 2024 and 2023. Shri Bhavesh Patil and Ms. Namita Kujur were appointed in 2024 and Gyan Singh was appointed in 2023 whereas the petitioner was discriminated and would submit that similarly situated person should be treated similarly therefore, his case may also be considered for issuing appointment. He would further submit that the petitioner subsequently moved an application on 22.08.2023, but the respondent kept silent over the issue almost for 8 months and when this Court has taken cognizance in the matter and all of a sudden the respondent No. 1 has decided the matter by rejecting the application of the petitioner vide order dated 30.04.2024 and candidature of the petitioner has been rejected. He would further submit that in respect of the post of Assistant Professor (English) appointment order has 6 been issued 19.01.2024 against result dated 03.08.2021 and the same pattern has been followed for Assistant Professor, Bio Technology for which the result was declared on 10.02.2021 and the appointment order has been issued on 19.01.2024 and the same pattern has been followed for the Assistant Professor, Commerce, as the result of the same was issued on 06.07.2021 and the appointment order has been issued on 01.06.2023. 7. It has been further contended that one Gyan Singh has filed a writ petition bearing WP(S) No. 2024 of 2023 wherein this Court vide its order dated 23.03.2023 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction that the PSC shall recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Economics) by tomorrow and pursuant to the same the said Gyan Singh was appointed on 02.06.2023. He would further submit that the petitioner has preferred various representations before several authorities for redressal of his grievance, but the same does not yield any result and because of inaction on the part of respondent authorities, the petitioner is suffering severe loss. He would further submit that the respondent authorities are acting with malafide intention and only issued the appointment orders by adopting the pick and choose method and passed the appointment orders only in favour of their blue eyed boys and would pray for allowing the instant petition. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that since the selected candidate after expiry period of waiting list has withdrawn his candidature and there is no provision under the Rule which can extend the validity period of waiting list, the impugned order passed 7 by the respondent No. 1 is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 10. From the submissions made by the parties, the point emerged for determination is whether after expiry of period of waiting list, the wait list candidate can be considered for appointment and whether petitioner is similarly situated person to the candidates who have been appointed in the year 2023 and 2024 as contended by the petitioner to claim parity with them? 11. To appreciate this point, it is expedient for this Court to refer to the Rule 12(3) and 12(7) of the Chhattisgarh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch, Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2019 which reads as under: “12. List of Candidates recommended by the commission.- (1) The commission shall prepare and forward to Government, a list arranged in the order of merit of the candidates, who have qualified by such standards as may be determine by the Commission and the list of the candidates belonging to the scheduled castes, scheduled Tribes and other Backward classes (Non-creamy-layer), who may not be qualified by that standard, but are declared to be suitable by the Commission for appointment to the service with due regard to the maintenance of efficiency in administration and the list of candidates of each category belonging to women, persons with disability/ex- servicemen in the order of merit of the candidates who have qualified by such standards due to reservation, whose validity for appointment shal1 be one year from the date of sending the list to the Government. (2) List so prepared under sub-rule (1) shall be notified on the Commission's website for information to the general public. (3) A select list for each category shall be prepared by the commission for filling the vacant posts, for such categories a waiting list shall also be prepared in which minimum one name 8 and maximum names upto 25% of the vacant posts shall be included. The validity of the list shall be for one and half year from the date of issue of such select list. Explanation- While calculating 25% vacant posts in each category, to make it an integer, decimal number shall be extended to the next integral number. (4) Commission shall forward the selection list prepared under sub-rule (1) and (3) to the Government for further action regarding appointment. However, no appointment shall made from waiting list without approval of the Commission. (5) Subject to the provisions of these rules and of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961, candidates shall be considered for appointment to the available vacancies in the order in which their names appear in the list. (6) The inclusion of candidates name in the list confers no right to appointment unless the Government is satisfied, after such enquiry, as may be considered necessary, that the candidate is suitable in all respects for appointment to the service. (7) Any candidate, whose name is included in the selection list, do not join the duty within the valid period or resigns or for any reason he is found unfit or the selected candidate dies during the valid period, the name of candidate from the waiting list can be recommended by the Commission for appointment. (8) If a request is being received from the Government asking to send names of the candidates from waiting list, then the Commission, as per the above provisions, shall recommend the names from the waiting list and send it to the Government. (9) The Commission after receiving the proposal from the Government, can extend the validity period of selection list for a maximum period of 6 months by stating valid reason to the Government. (10) On extending the validity period of select list for 6 months, the validity period of waiting list shall automatically deem to be extended for 6 months. (11) The validity of selection list, prepared under sub-rule (9) and (10), shall not be extended by the Commission unless the Government makes any recommendation stating valid reason for extension.” 12. From perusal of the said rule, it is quite vivid that waiting list candidate can be considered for appointment if the selected candidate does not join or resign or died during the validity period. Admittedly, the selection list was issued on 30.06.2021 and as per the rules, the validity period of the PSC is one year and six months 9 which expired on 29.12.2022. The petitioner’s case itself that the selected candidate on the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science) Ram Ratan Khunte has shown unwillingness to join on the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science) as he already joined as Assistant Professor (Computer Application) on 22.08.2023 i.e. after the validity period of select list and waiting list. Thus, the petitioner cannot be considered to be appointed as Assistant Professor (Computer Science) being from the waiting list. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Radhika T. vs. Cochin University of Science and Technology & Ors. in SLP(C) No. 10079-10080/2025 bearing Neutral Citation No. 2025 INSC 1462 has examined the right of a wait list candidate for considering his appointment from the waiting list in paragraph 7.4 to 10 and has held as under: “7.4 It is correct that a waiting list is not a ready reservoir for the recruitment, but it is equally true that when it is made operative for a particular period under any provision, rule or circular, it has to be acted upon for the contingency when any of the selected candidate does not join or the appointee resigns. The waiting list is intended to pave way for the next ranked candidate to be appointed in such situation provided the vacancy occurs. In the present case, however the above dictum and the principles would have to be applied harmoniously with the rule 9 of rotation envisaged in Section 31(11) of the Act. 7.5 The rules of recruitment may provide the time stipulation about the validity and operation of the wait list. When the wait list or rank list kept alive for the purpose of making appointment therefrom by virtue of provision or stipulation, such mandate will have to be adhered to and a candidate placed next on merit in the Wait List or Rank List would be entitled to lodge his or her claim for appointment successfully to the vacancy created by virtue of none being appointed. From the survey of the decisions on the subject of operation of Wait List Or Rank List and the corresponding rights of the candidates enlisted therein, the law could be summarised to state that the wait list by itself is not a source of recruitment, and that generally a candidate placed in the wait list has no vested right to invariably claim 10 appointment therefrom, however when the wait list is made valid for a stipulated period, it would operate for such period. 8. Again, in the present set of facts, the above proposition would hold true subject to operation of rule and policy of rotation as per Section 31(11). 9. In the teeth of the aforesaid principles of law enunciated by this court when facts on hand are examined, it would not detain us for long to brush aside the contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, though at first blush it looked attractive. At the cost of repetition, it is apt to note that the post called for was filled up but Dr. Anitha a Scheduled Caste candidate who worked for a period of more than one year viz., till she resigned on 30.03.2022, and on her resignation the vacancy of the said post having arisen, the mandate of sub- section (10) of section 31 prescribing that the waiting list would be in operation for a period of two years and simultaneously sub-section (11) of section 31 would be attracted and both these provisions have to be read harmoniously. 10. For the above precise reason, the respondent university has applied the communal rotation and assigned the vacancy to the turn of 8- LC/AI that is, Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian Category and as the petitioner did not belong to the said category she has not been selected or for that matter none from the wait list belonged to the said category.” 13. The petitioner has contended that the appointment order has been issued to several persons against the waiting list even in the year 2024 and 2023 and namely Shri Bhavesh Patil and Ms. Namita Kujur were appointed in 2024 and Gyan Singh was appointed in 2023 whereas the petitioner was discriminated and would submit that similar situated person should be treated similarly therefore, his case may also be considered for issuing appointment is being considered by this Court. To substantiate this submission the petitioner has only placed on record the appointment order of these candidates, but he neither pleaded nor contended that these candidates were appointed during validity of waiting list or after the expiry of validity period or the candidates whose place these candidates have appointed have resigned, died or not joined the service during the validity of the 11 select list or waiting list. In absence of any foundation facts the principle for similarly situated person cannot be applied. Even otherwise, it is well settled position of law that for claiming parity, burden of proof lies upon the person claiming parity. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab & others Vs. Jagjit Singh & others [(2017) 1 SCC 148] had held in paragraph 42.1 as under:- “42.1 The ‘onus of proof’, of parity in the duties and responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, lies on the person who claims it. He who approaches the Court has to establish, that the subject post occupied by him, requires him to discharge equal work of equal value, as the reference post (see – the Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case10, Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh v. Manju Mathur15, the Steel Authority of India Limited case16, and the National Aluminum Company Limited case18).” 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in case of State of Chhattisgarh vs. Rekha Soni in WA No. 817/2024. The issue raised in case of Rekha Soni (Supra) is that the Chhattisgarh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch, Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2019 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India will have prevailed over the Rules framed by the Public Service Commission known as Public Service Commission Procedure Rules, 2014. The Hon’ble Division Bench has held that the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India will prevail. This issued is not involved in the case in hand, therefore, it is not applicable to the present case. 15. So far as judgment passed by this Court in case of Dr. Archana Khati 12 vs. State of Chhattisgarh decided on 07.09.2022 the issue involved in that case the waiting list was already cleared during the validity period, but the State could not issue the appointment order due to imposition of moral code of conduct which is not the issue in present case, therefore, it is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. 16. Considering the fact that the Ram Ratan Khunte has declined to join on the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science) after validity period of waiting list and in view of he well settled position of law that wait list is valid for a stipulated period, it would operate for such period, I am of the view that the respondent No. 1 has not committed any illegality in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner vide order dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure P/18). Consequently the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika