1 2026:CGHC:1330-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 975 of 2025 Dr. Dineshwar Prasad Soni (D.K. Soni), S/o. Late Ramji Prasad Soni, Aged About 47 Years R/o Nawapara, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, General Administration Department (Rti Cell), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Search Committee Through Its Chairman Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Commissioner, Public Relations Office, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhandari, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.01.09 17:54:35 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhandari, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents / State. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 11.11.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3815/2025 (Dr. Dineshwar Prasad Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh an Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.11.2024 an advertisement has been issued by the respondent No.2 for appointment on the post of State Chief Information Commissioner vide notification bearing S.No. F 3-1/2020/1-13 extending the advertisements dated 05.09.2022 and 07.02.2024 only for the post of State Chief Information Commissioner. The appellant who is having an education qualification of B.A. LLB and is an advocate by profession and has been practicing law since last 21 years, has applied for the post of State Information Commissioner on 03.12.2024 in light of the advertisement dated 29.11.2024. A search Committee was formed consisting of 4 members under the Chairmanship of Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Chhattisgarh for shortlisting of candidates for interview for the post 3 of State Chief Information Commissioner. A total of 114 candidates have applied for the said post. The Search Committee has laid down new the criteria that the candidates who are having experience of 30 years or more in their respective fields shall only be short listed for interview which was conducted on 26.03.2025 but till date the appointment order has not been issued. It was also mentioned that the said criteria have been introduced looking to the number of applications received for such post. Being aggrieved by the order of the respondent State the appellant had preferred a Writ Petition vide WPS No. 3815/2025 which has been rejected by the Learned Single Judge on the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not directed that the criteria should be first published and only condition precedent for short-listing is that it should be followed rationally and objectively which have been done meticulously by the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein has preferred this present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is illegal, erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law, inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that both the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have consistently and categorically held that the criteria for short-listing or selection must be made public and transparent at the very inception. It is submitted that the respondents have acted in blatant disregard of the binding directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anjali 4 Bhardwaj v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 436/2018), decided on 15th February, 2019 wherein, particularly under Clause 66.3, it has been mandated that the criteria for short-listing must be disclosed and made public, which admittedly has not been done in the present case. The learned Single Judge further erred in not considering the settled law that the “rules of the game” cannot be altered once the selection process has commenced. The condition of having experience of 30 years or more was neither mentioned in the original advertisement nor disclosed to the applicants at any stage prior to commencement of the process, and therefore could not have been introduced or applied subsequently. The failure to take note of this illegality has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. It is further submitted that the introduction of such an undisclosed and arbitrary criterion, allegedly on the ground of receipt of a large number of applications, clearly demonstrates the mala fide intent of the respondent authorities to confer undue advantage upon a chosen few, thereby vitiating the entire selection process on account of arbitrariness, lack of transparency and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 5 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 7. Perusal of paragraphs 26 to 28 of the impugned order clearly establishes that the learned Single Judge has appreciated the pleadings, facts and settled position of law, and has affirmed the validity of the short-listing process adopted by the Search Committee. The learned Single Judge has recorded a categorical finding that the writ petitioners had neither pleaded nor substantiated any allegation of mala fides, arbitrariness or lack of rationality in the procedure adopted for short-listing, and that the only grievance raised pertained to non-publication of the short- listing criteria prior to its application. The learned Single Judge has interpreted the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India by holding that there is no absolute mandate requiring prior publication of the short-listing methodology, and that the essential requirement is that such methodology must be applied in a rational, objective and non- discriminatory manner, which has been meticulously followed by the respondents. The finding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused to them on account of non- publication of the short-listing criteria is in consonance with settled law that interference in selection processes is warranted only when demonstrable prejudice or illegality is established. In the absence of any proven arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of 6 statutory or constitutional provisions, the learned Single Judge has concluded that no illegality was committed by the respondents so as to vitiate the selection process, and has thus dismissed the writ petitions and vacated the interim order, warranting no interference. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet