1 2026:CGHC:19909-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 258 of 2026 1 - Jitendra Chandrakar S/o Malikram Chandrakar Aged About 40 Years R/o Thakur Pyarelal Ward Idgahbhata, Near Sahu Bhawan, Lane Number 10, Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Development And Kishan Kalyan And Biotechnology Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., 2 - Director Agriculture Directorate, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., 3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur Through Its Secretary, Public Service Commission, Raipur, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., 4 - Divisional Joint Director, Agriculture Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents No. 1,2 & 4/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General For Respondent No.3 Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 29/04/2026 Per Ramesh Sinha, C. J. The appellant has preferred the present writ appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure A/1) passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 8809 of 2019, whereby the learned Single Bench, without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition. 2. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal, inter alia, praying for setting aside of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench on the following facts and grounds: 3. Facts of the case in brief as per the pleadings made by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge are that : (a) The appellant was initially appointed on the post of Rural Agricultural Extension Officer vide order dated 20.05.2008 and has been serving under the Agriculture Department. (b) During his service, Respondent No. 3 (Public Service Commission) 3 issued an advertisement dated 22.12.2012 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Director Agriculture. The appellant participated in the selection process. The written examination was conducted on 29.09.2013, followed by interviews held between 20.05.2014 to 24.05.2014, and the final selection list was published on 27.05.2014, wherein the appellant secured 10th position in the unreserved category. (c) Prior to issuance of appointment orders, the appellant disclosed that a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC was pending against him. Consequently, though appointments were issued on 17.10.2014, the appellant’s name was excluded. (d) The appellant made representations requesting conditional appointment subject to the outcome of the criminal case, but the same were not acted upon. However, one post was kept vacant in anticipation of the final outcome. (e) Subsequently, by judgment dated 25.01.2019, the appellant was acquitted of all charges. Thereafter, he again submitted representations along with the acquittal order seeking appointment. (f) Despite availability of vacancy and the appellant’s acquittal, Respondent No. 3 rejected the recommendation on the ground that the validity period of the select list (two years) had expired. (g) The appellant filed W.P.(S) No. 8809/2019 challenging the rejection order dated 27.09.2019. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ 4 petition by order dated 22.01.2026 holding that the select list had expired. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeal has been preferred. 4. In reply, learned State counsel, opposing the writ petition, has contended that the select list in question was published on 27.05.2014 and as per the settled procedure governing appointments, remained valid only for a period of two years. Upon expiry of the said period, the select list lapsed automatically and ceased to confer any enforceable right upon the petitioner. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s representation, preferred on 27.09.2019, was rightly rejected by the competent authority as the same was made long after the expiry of the select list. Learned State counsel argued that once the validity period had expired, no appointment could be made on the basis of such lapsed select list, and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any vested or accrued right to appointment. 5. On the aforesaid premises, it was urged that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s claim is legal, justified, and in consonance with the applicable rules and settled principles of law. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserved to be dismissed. 6. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the record, held stating as under : “that the select list in question was published on 27.05.2014 and, in terms of the governing rules, remained valid only for a period of two years. It was observed that the writ petition was filed on 5 17.10.2019, i.e., long after the expiry of the validity of the select list. Placing reliance on the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Yati Jain and Others (2026 SCC Online SC 80), the learned Single Judge held that a candidate included in a select list does not acquire any indefeasible right to appointment, particularly after the expiry of the select list. It was further held that once the select list had lapsed, no mandamus could be issued directing appointment on the basis of such expired list. Accordingly, finding no merit in the claim of the petitioner, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.” 7. Consequently by the said order, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant herein submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant’s non-appointment was not due to any fault of the appellant, but solely because of pendency of a criminal case which ultimately resulted in acquittal. Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 specifically provides that where a criminal case is pending, the appointment shall be kept pending till final disposal, and therefore, the authorities were duty-bound to consider the appellant after acquittal. He submits that the authorities themselves kept one post vacant, thereby acknowledging the appellant’s entitlement and keeping his claim alive. Once the appellant was acquitted, the embargo ceased to 6 exist, and denial of appointment thereafter is arbitrary and illegal. He submits that the ground of expiry of the select list is unsustainable since the delay was caused by the respondents themselves and cannot be used to defeat the appellant’s legitimate claim. 9. It is further submitted that the action of the respondents violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, being arbitrary, discriminatory, and unreasonable. He submits that the learned Single Judge erred in mechanically applying the principle of expiry of select list without considering the peculiar facts and statutory mandate under the Rules of 1961. 10. Learned State counsel submits that the select list was published on 27.05.2014 and remained valid for a period of two years, and thereafter automatically lapsed. He submits that the writ petition itself was filed in 2019, after expiry of the select list, and therefore no enforceable right survives and the learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Yati Jain (2026 SCC Online SC 80). He submits that no vested right accrues to a candidate merely by inclusion in the select list therefore, the rejection of the appellant’s claim is in accordance with law and does not call for interference. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/PSC submits that the Commission’s role is confined to preparation of the select list and recommendations. Since the validity of the select list expired after two years, no recommendation could be acted upon thereafter. He 7 submits that the Commission rightly declined to process the appellant’s case in view of the lapse of the select list. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned and material available on record. 13. It is not in dispute that the appellant was duly selected and placed at 10th position in the merit list. It is also undisputed that the appellant was denied appointment solely due to pendency of a criminal case, which he had disclosed bona fide. Rule 6 of the Rules, 1961 clearly mandates that where a criminal case is pending, the appointment shall be kept pending till final decision of the case. Thus, the authorities were under a statutory obligation to defer, not deny, the appointment. The record further reveals that one post was consciously kept vacant by the department, thereby preserving the appellant’s claim. The appellant was acquitted on 25.01.2019. Upon acquittal, the disqualification ceased, and the appellant became fully eligible for appointment. The plea of expiry of the select list cannot be accepted in the peculiar facts of the present case. The delay was occasioned by the respondents themselves due to pendency of the criminal case, and therefore, they cannot take advantage of their own inaction. The reliance placed on the judgment in Yati Jain (supra) is misplaced, as the said case does not deal with a situation where appointment was deferred due to statutory mandate and later revived upon acquittal. Denial of appointment in such circumstances amounts to arbitrariness and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge did not consider the effect of Rule 6 and the admitted fact that vacancy was kept reserved for the 8 appellant. 14. It is pertinent to note that, during the course of proceedings, on the last date of hearing (ie. 01.04.2026), this Court has heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and the learned counsel for Respondent No. 3/PSC. It was brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant was denied appointment solely on account of pendency of a criminal case, despite his selection in the year 2014, and that the said criminal proceedings have culminated in acquittal in the year 2019. The appellant had also relied upon the proviso to Clause 6(4) of the applicable service rules, which mandates that in cases where criminal proceedings are pending, the appointment ought to be kept in abeyance till final adjudication. 15. It has further come on record that the post in question has remained vacant till date, and the denial of appointment to the appellant has been justified by the State only on the ground that the select list was valid for a period of two years. This Court had, by an earlier order, also directed the State to place on record whether any vacancy still subsists. 16. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, and particularly in view of the acquittal of the appellant and the statutory mandate governing such situations, this Court finds that the action of the respondents in denying appointment to the appellant is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The appellant cannot be made to suffer for a circumstance which stood 9 resolved in his favour, especially when the vacancy has been kept unfilled. 17. In view of the above analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable in law. The appellant has a legitimate and enforceable right to be considered for appointment upon acquittal, and such right cannot be defeated on the technical ground of expiry of the select list. 18. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.01.2026 passed in W.P.(S) No. 8809/2019 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellant for appointment to the post of Assistant Director Agriculture in accordance with his merit position. If found suitable, the appellant shall be granted appointment with notional seniority and consequential benefits, except back wages. 19. However, before parting with the matter, it is observed that the appellant shall remain cautious in future and conduct himself in a manner befitting a public servant, so as to avoid any situation which may invite adverse proceedings or impede his service career. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.05.01 10:44:09 +0530