1 2026:CGHC:500 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3189 of 2023 1 - Mulchand Thakur S/o. Shri Bhaktu Ram Thakur, Aged About 40 Years Cast - Gond (S.T.), Ex - Servicemen Indian Army, Rank - Lance Havaldar (L/hav), Permanent R/o. House No. 204, Ward No. 1, Bachali, Thasil Bade - Bachali, District - South - Bastar, Dantawada Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - National Mineral Development Corporation (Nmdc) ( A Government Of India Enterprise), Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Khanij Bhawan, Castel Hills Masab Tank, Hyderabad – 500028. 2 - General Manager, National Mineral Development Corporation, Bailadila Iron Ore Mine, Kirundal Complex, Kirandul - 494556, District - South - Bastar, Dantewada Chhattisgarh 3 - General Manager, National Mineral Development Corporation, Bailadila Iron Ore Mine, Kirundal Complex, Kirandul - 494556, District - South - Bastar, Dantewada Chhattisgarh 4 - Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Personal, Public Grievances And Pensions ( Department Of Personnel And Training), 5th Floor, Sardar Patel Bhawan, New Delhi. 10001. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate assisted by Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 3 : Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/01/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quashing the impugned List of Candidates shortlisted for physical training (Annexure-P/4). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, order/orders or direction commanding 8 the official respondents to granting horizontal reservation meant for the Ex-Servicemen in a ST Category to the petitioner. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, orders or directions declaring that the petitioner being Ex- servicemen, is available, and the respondents have to be adjusted in the respective social category ST to which the petitioner belong by replacing the last candidate from that category form final selection list made during the pendency of instant writ petition. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, orders or directions declaring that all the selection procedure without following reservation roster is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 10.5 Any other relief which may deems fit may also be awarded along with cost of the petition.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the respondent–NMDC issued an advertisement dated 08.03.2021 inviting applications for various posts, including 35 and 30 posts of Field Attendant (Trainee) at Bailadila Iron Ore Mine, Kirandul and Bacheli 3 respectively, wherein reservation details were duly notified. As per Clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of the advertisement, 11 posts at Kirandul and 9 posts at Bacheli were reserved for ST (Trainee) category, and as per Clause 2.3, reservation for SC/ST/OBC (NCL), EWS, PWD and Ex-Servicemen was to be governed by Government of India directives. The selection process comprised a written examination followed by a physical ability test, and candidates were permitted to apply for both locations. The petitioner, belonging to the ST category and being an Ex-Serviceman, applied for both Kirandul and Bacheli, qualified in the written examination by securing 48 and 50 marks respectively, which were above the minimum qualifying marks of 40 prescribed for ST candidates. However, when the shortlist for the physical ability test was published, the petitioner’s name was not included. Aggrieved, the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act regarding compliance with Government of India reservation directives for Ex-Servicemen, but no response was received, even though physical tests were conducted pursuant to notice dated 15.04.2023. It is the petitioner’s case that under Rule 4 of the Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979, horizontal reservation is mandated, and despite availability of ST Ex-Servicemen candidates, none were shortlisted for the physical test, thereby denying the petitioner the benefit of reservation. Consequently, the petitioner contends that the respondents, being a Government of India enterprise, were 4 duty-bound to adjust the petitioner against the ST category by applying horizontal reservation, and their failure to do so has necessitated the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the official respondents in not correctly extending horizontal reservation meant for Ex-Servicemen within the ST category is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law, despite the petitioner being legally entitled to consideration for appointment to the post of Field Attendant (Trainee), and therefore the petitioner has rightly challenged the shortlist of candidates called for the Physical Ability Test. It is further submitted that Rule 4 of the Ex- Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and having the force of law, mandates reservation of 20% in Group-D posts and 10% in Group-C posts for Ex-Servicemen, and repeated instructions have been issued by the Central as well as State Governments for strict compliance thereof. In the present case, though 11 and 9 posts were advertised for the ST category at Kirandul and Bacheli respectively, not a single ST Ex- Serviceman has been included in the shortlist for the Physical Ability Test, thereby denying the petitioner the statutory benefit of reservation by the respondents, who are a Government of India enterprise. Learned counsel further submits that horizontal reservation operates across social categories and Ex-Servicemen are required to be adjusted within their respective social category 5 after necessary adjustments; thus, if the requisite number of Ex- Servicemen do not find place in the merit list prepared on vertical reservation, eligible Ex-Servicemen must be accommodated by replacing the last candidate of the concerned social category. It is contended that while Article 16(4) of the Constitution provides for vertical reservation for SC/ST/OBC, the petitioner, being an ST Ex-Serviceman, is entitled to horizontal reservation under Articles 15(3) and 16(1), even if he does not secure selection on pure vertical merit. Since the petitioner is an available and eligible ST Ex-Serviceman, the respondents were duty-bound to adjust him against the ST category by applying horizontal reservation, in accordance with the instructions issued from time to time by the competent authorities. It is lastly submitted that the selection process has not yet been finalized, and therefore no vested right has accrued in favour of the last selected or other candidates of the ST category, who have not even been impleaded as respondents, warranting interference by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 submits, at the outset, that the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merit. It is submitted that NMDC Limited issued Employment Notification No. 05/2021 dated 08.03.2021 for recruitment to various Workmen Grade posts, including the post of Field Attendant (Trainee), clearly specifying the project-wise and category-wise reservation for BIOM Kirandul Complex and BIOM Bacheli Complex. The entire recruitment process was conducted strictly in accordance 6 with the terms of the notification, NMDC Recruitment Policy, 2018, and the applicable Government of India directives, and therefore no arbitrariness or illegality can be attributed to the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner applied for the post of Field Attendant (Trainee) for both BIOM Kirandul and BIOM Bacheli Complex by availing age relaxation admissible to Ex-Servicemen as per Government of India guidelines. The written examination was conducted on 26.06.2022 separately for both projects and the results were declared on 12.12.2022. A large number of Ex- Servicemen candidates participated in the selection process, namely 33 candidates for BIOM Kirandul Complex and 32 candidates for BIOM Bacheli Complex, which itself demonstrates that adequate opportunity was afforded to Ex-Servicemen candidates. Learned counsel further submits that, as per Clause 5.5 of the Employment Notification, candidates were shortlisted for the Physical Ability Test in the ratio of 1:3 on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination. Accordingly, 105 candidates for BIOM Bacheli Complex and 127 candidates for BIOM Kirandul Complex were shortlisted, and the same was duly published on the NMDC website. The cut-off marks for each category were determined purely on merit, and the marks secured by the last shortlisted candidates in ST category were 77 for Bacheli Complex and 76 for Kirandul Complex. It is further submitted that suitable relaxation in cut-off marks was extended to Ex-Servicemen candidates in accordance with Government of 7 India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Office Memorandum No. 15012/0/82-Estt (D) dated 12.02.1986, subject to the condition that such relaxation does not compromise the level of performance. After applying such relaxation, the cut- off mark for Ex-Servicemen candidates was fixed at 65 for both projects. On this basis, two Ex-Servicemen candidates for BIOM Kirandul Complex and one Ex-Serviceman candidate for BIOM Bacheli Complex, who secured more than 65 marks, were rightly called for the Physical Ability Test. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner secured only 48 marks for BIOM Kirandul Complex and 50 marks for BIOM Bacheli Complex in the written examination, which is far below not only the ST category cut-off but also the relaxed cut-off of 65 prescribed for Ex-Servicemen candidates. Therefore, the petitioner was not shortlisted for the Physical Ability Test solely due to insufficiency of marks and not on account of any violation of reservation policy. It is vehemently denied that the respondents failed to apply horizontal reservation for Ex-Servicemen. Learned counsel submits that horizontal reservation has been applied strictly in accordance with the Government of India Office Memorandum No. 36012/58/92-Estt (SCT) dated 01.12.1994, issued pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney. As clarified therein, an Ex-Serviceman selected under horizontal reservation is required to be adjusted in the appropriate vertical category, namely SC/ST/OBC/UR, to which he belongs. Accordingly, Ex- 8 Servicemen candidates who met the relaxed cut-off were considered and adjusted in their respective social categories, including ST. It is further submitted that merely belonging to the ST category and being an Ex-Serviceman does not confer an automatic right to be shortlisted or selected unless the candidate meets the minimum eligibility and cut-off marks prescribed after due relaxation. The petitioner has failed to satisfy even the relaxed benchmark, and therefore no cause of action has arisen in his favour. The allegation that the reservation roster was not followed is false, frivolous and made only to mislead this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 also submits that the selection process has been conducted in a transparent and fair manner, strictly adhering to the employment notification and statutory instructions. Even several Ex-Servicemen candidates belonging to the ST category who secured marks higher than the petitioner but below the relaxed cut-off of 65 were also not called for the Physical Ability Test, which clearly establishes that the petitioner has not been discriminated against in any manner. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel contends that the petitioner has failed to make out any legal or factual ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed at the threshold as being wholly misconceived, meritless and an abuse of the process of law, and the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. 9 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon careful perusal of the pleadings and material placed on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashment of the list of candidates shortlisted for the Physical Ability Test, grant of horizontal reservation meant for Ex- Servicemen in ST category, and consequential directions for adjustment of the petitioner by replacing the last candidate of the ST category, besides a declaration that the entire selection process is bad in law. 7. The undisputed facts reveal that the respondent–NMDC issued Employment Notification dated 08.03.2021 clearly specifying the number of posts, category-wise reservation and the manner of selection. The advertisement categorically provided that reservation for SC/ST/OBC (NCL), EWS, PWD and Ex- Servicemen would be governed by Government of India directives. The selection process consisted of a written examination followed by a Physical Ability Test, and shortlisting for the second stage was to be done in the ratio of 1:3 strictly on the basis of merit, as provided under Clause 5.5 of the Employment Notification. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner, belonging to ST category and being an Ex-Serviceman, applied for both BIOM Kirandul and BIOM Bacheli Complex and secured 48 and 50 marks respectively in the written examination. The record further demonstrates that the cut-off marks for the last shortlisted candidates in ST category were 76 for Kirandul Complex and 77 10 for Bacheli Complex. Even for Ex-Servicemen, suitable relaxation in cut-off marks was extended in accordance with Government of India Office Memorandum dated 12.02.1986, and the relaxed cut- off was fixed at 65 for both projects. Only those Ex-Servicemen candidates who secured marks above the relaxed cut-off were shortlisted for the Physical Ability Test. 8. This Court finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that horizontal reservation for Ex-Servicemen has, in fact, been applied in accordance with Government of India Office Memorandum dated 01.12.1994, issued pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney. The said instructions clearly provide that Ex-Servicemen selected under horizontal reservation are to be adjusted in the respective vertical category to which they belong. The material on record shows that Ex-Servicemen candidates who secured the requisite relaxed cut-off were duly considered and shortlisted in their respective social categories, including ST. The contention of the petitioner that mere availability of ST Ex-Servicemen candidates entitles him to adjustment by replacing the last candidate of the ST category is misconceived. Horizontal reservation does not dispense with the requirement of meeting the minimum eligibility or prescribed cut-off marks. It only operates after merit-based shortlisting, subject to the applicable relaxation. The petitioner, having secured marks far below even the relaxed cut-off of 65, cannot claim a vested or enforceable right to be shortlisted for the 11 Physical Ability Test or to be adjusted against the ST category. 9. This Court is also unable to accept the argument that the entire selection process is vitiated for non-compliance of the reservation roster. On the contrary, the respondents have demonstrated that the recruitment process was conducted strictly in terms of the Employment Notification, NMDC Recruitment Policy, 2018 and the Government of India directives. The fact that other Ex-Servicemen candidates, including those belonging to ST category, who failed to meet the relaxed cut-off were also not shortlisted, clearly rules out any allegation of discrimination or arbitrariness. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the petitioner has failed to establish any illegality, arbitrariness or violation of statutory provisions or constitutional mandates in the action of the respondents. No ground is made out for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE