1 / 11 2026:CGHC:5491 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10253 of 2025 Satyam Gupta S/o Shri Sanjay Gupta Aged About 25 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Nawadih, Post- Tatapani, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Deputy Director Agriculture-Cum-Project Manager W.C.D.C., District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 4 - Dilip Kumar Ekka S/o Shri Nageshwar Ekka Aged About 24 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Tatapani, Post- Tatapani, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate For State : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Panel lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.02.05 10:38:24 +0530 2 / 11 31/01/2026 1. Notices were issued to private respondent no.4, petitioner had submitted the dasti service report along with affidavit, however there is no representation on behalf of respondent no. 4, therefore, this writ petition is considered and heard in his absence. 2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned action of the respondent authorities 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Secretary (Contractual) Tatapani Micro Watershed Committee (Code 2A6C6A2F). 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the name of the petitioner in the final merit list and to appoint/engage the petitioner on the post of advertised. 10.4 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to produce before this Hon’ble Court the entire records of the recruitment/selection process conducted under the aforesaid advertisement and to justify the deletion of the petitioner’s name from the merit list, failing which an adverse inference may kindly be drawn against the respondents. 10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief’s in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs of the petitioner." 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the office of Deputy Director Agriculture cum Project Manager, WCDC, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh has issued an advertisement dated 3 / 11 06.03.2023 inviting application from the interested persons for their appointment to the post of Secretary (contractual) in various Micro Watershed Committee. Petitioner submitted an application for his appointment on the post of Secretary of Micro Watershed Committee, Tatapani which includes Tatapani, Teterdih, Navadih, Damodarpur, Dhangawan, Bhawanipur, Rajbandha and Lurghutta. There was only one post which is unreserved. Petitioner submitted an application along with other candidates and after receipt of application respondent departments have published list mentioning the name of candidates whose applications were received in the office. Respondent authorities thereafter has published merit list. Name and code with respect to Micro Watershed Committee, Tatapani list of three meritorious candidates was published in which petitioner has been shown to be at serial no. 1 in the merit list with 67.9 total marks in aggregate including the marks of experience. He submits that thereafter respondents have published a notice asking the candidates whose name is mentioned in the list published by the committee to produce documents for its verification. Accordingly, petitioner submitted all the relevant documents including experience certificate issued by the Mirror Academy Computer Education Centre, Ramanujganj with his appointment order and experience certificate. 4. He also submits that Deputy director further issued another letter on 11.12.2024 asking for submitting the documents once again to which petitioner also submitted. After lapse of about three months respondent had issued a notice mentioning that the appointment with respect to Micro Watershed Committee, Tatapani and Committee Jamvantpur is kept under consideration and select list with waiting list has been 4 / 11 published for other committees as mentioned in the advertisement which is about 13 in numbers. He submits that petitioner thereafter submitted representation before Collector informing him that the issuance of the appointment/selection orders with respect to Water Shed Committee i.e. the Tatapani and Jamvantpur has been witheld by the respondent authorities and is pending consideration and thereafter respondent authorities have published the select list with respect to Tatapani mentioning the name of Dilip Kumar Ekka to be selected candidate. Satyam Gupta and Gyanchand Singh had been showed to be in waiting list, who were earlier in merit list at serial no. 1 and 2. He further submits that from the merit list prepared by respondent it is appearing that Dilip Kumar Ekka was not even named in the merit list of three meritorious candidates but surprisingly his name was published in select list which is arbitrary and illegal. 5. Learned counsel for State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that appointment has been made strictly following due process of law. From the marks as awarded and mentioned in the select list Annexure P-1 it is clear that Dilip Kumar Ekka secured 65.11 marks whereas petitioner secured only 62.9 marks in total. In the select list there is no mention of award of marks with regard to the experience to petitioner. He submits that the experience certificate or other documents produced in support of experience was of from private institute whereas experience certificate ought to have been from Government or Semi-Government institute. Accordingly, petitioner was not awarded marks towards experience. 5 / 11 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings and the documents enclosed in this writ petition. 7. Petitioner in para no. 8.12 of writ petition has categorically pleaded that petitioner’s name was published to be at serial no. 1 in the merit list published by the respondent department, however subsequently his name has been removed from serial no. 1 and has been placed at serial no. 2 and thereafter in the waiting list candidate illegally and arbitrarily. Respondents in their reply has not made any pleadings in this regard as to how the petitioner who has been shown to be a meritorious candidate in merit list published by respondent department and placed him at serial no. 1 and as to how Dilip Kumar Ekka has been shown to be at serial no. 1 in the selected list when selection is to be based on the merit list prepared by the respondent department. 8. Perusal of Annexure P-5 which is letter written to petitioner by respondent Deputy Director it is appearing that for one post three candidates have been considered and after considering documents of qualification merit list is to be issued. The merit list prepared by respondent department enclosed along with Annexure P-5 at page no. 39 is not disputed by the respondent to be not the document prepared by the respondent. 9. Perusal of the merit list would show that it bears name of petitioner at first place, second name is of Gyan Chand Singh and third name is of Vinod Kumar. There is no mention of name of Dilip Kumar Ekka in the merit list. Meaning thereby, at the time of preparing the merit list Dilip Kumar Ekka i.e. private respondent no. 4 was not in picture to be three meritorious candidates identified by respondents at the time of scrutiny 6 / 11 of applications form and documents enclosed therein. Annexure P-9 even does not mention as to any error in preparation of merit list by respondent department but only mentions that due to unavoidable circumstances the proceedings of recruitment/appointment with respect to Micro Water Shed Committee, Tatapani and Jamvantpur is kept under consideration. 10. From the aforementioned facts of the case, which is not denied in specific terms by respondent- State it is clear that after completion of the process of submission of application form, upon its scrutiny the petitioner was held to be at serial no. 1 being the candidate, secured highest marks, upon evaluation of the mark sheet and other documents. Even the private respondent Dilip Kumar Ekka is not named at serial no. 2 or 3 and therefore, it is crystal clear that he was neither in picture at the time of preparation of the merit list for one post nor while considering the candidates in the ration of 1:3. 11. In reply respondent State has not pleaded in specific terms as to why Dilip Kumar Ekka was not named in the earlier merit list and as to how his name finds place subsequently in the select list directly. The aforementioned facts prima facie shows that private respondent Dilip Kumar Ekka has been selected by adopting illegal means and therefore, selection of the private respondent would not be sustainable. 12. The only pleading made in the reply for awarding less marks to the petitioner in select list is that the experience of the petitioner was not found to be acceptable as petitioner has not gained experience from any Government or Semi- Govt. institute. 7 / 11 13. Perusal of the advertisement would show that under the minimum education qualification it is mentioned as 12th Pass and candidate should be resident of village/village panchayat which is following within the micro watershed region, and preference to be given to the candidate having experience in computer. There is no specific mention as to experience should be of Govt. or Semi-Govt. Institution. Following are the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 06.03.2023:- “1. नियम एवं शቔኔ - 1. संनिवंदा नियሹኌቔኔ छ.ग. शसं संनिवंदा नियम 2012 म निनिቔኔ शቔኔ के असंर के जावंग। 2. संनिवंदा पर नियቔኔ ्ቤሹኌቔኔ छ.ग. सिसंनिवंल संवं (आचरण) नियम 1985 सं शसिसंቔኔ &ग। 3. आय संम- आवंदाके के आय दिदाके 01.01.2022 के ሹኌ(निቔኔ म न्य*ቔኔम 18 वं्ቧ, एवं अधि.केቔኔम 35 वं्ቧ, /ग। आय संम म संमन्य ्ቚशसं निवंभाग ቛኋर संमय-संमय पर जार छट संबं. आदाश / निदाश नियሹኌቔኔ के सिलय भा लग* &ग। 4. नियሹኌቔኔ के अवंधि.- संनिवंदा नियሹኌቔኔ संमन्यቔኔ5 एके वं्ቧ, के सिलय /ग। WCDC आवंश्यकेቔኔ के आ.र पर एवं संनिवंदा नियቔኔ ्ቤሹኌቔኔ के उपयቔኔቔኔ के ग/पय ्ቚनिቔኔवंदा ቛኋर आकेल केर संवं वं8ቍኌ: के निण,य ल संके ग। संनिवंदा नियሹኌቔኔ के अवंधि. परिरय/जा संम቎ኌ=ቔኔ पर संनिवंदा नियሹኌቔኔ स्वंयमवं संम=ቔኔ म जावंग। 5. अवंकेश के प्ቔቔኔ- संनिवंदा पर नियቔኔ केम,चर के/ ्ቚत्यके केA लण्डर वं्ቧ, म 18 दिदा& के आकेቦኌस्मके अवंकेश ቔኔथा 03 दिदा& के ऐሹኌGके अवंकेश के प्ቔቔኔ के गण प*ण, म& के सिलय अपनिቔኔके आ.र पर निकेय जावंग। गण म अप*ण, दिदावंसं के/ आगम प*ण, दिदावंसं सं प*ण,निकेቔኔ निकेय जावंग। निवंቦኋमवंकेश निवंभाग& म केA लण्डर वं्ቧ, के ቔኔत्पय, 12 म के वंस्ቔኔनिवंके संवं सं लगय जाएग। 6. ्ቚसं*निቔኔ अवंकेश- शसं ቛኋर संनिवंदा नियቔኔ अधि.केर/केम,चर के सिलय नि.,रिरቔኔ ्ቚसं*निቔኔ अवंकेश के प्ቔቔኔ /ग। 7. संनिवंदा पर नियቔኔ ्ቤሹኌቔኔ के/ अप परिरवंर के संमቍኌजाके संरቌኋ के सिलए संनिवंदा वंቔኔ के केम सं केम 10 ्ቚनिቔኔशቔኔ रसिश जावं बंम पश य/जा अथावं प.प.एफ. म जाम केर /ग ቔኔथा इसं बंቔኔ के सं*च नियሹኌቔኔ ्ቚधि.केर के/ दा /ग के केम,चर ቛኋर निकेसं य/जा के वंरण निकेय गय A परन्ቔኔ य ्ቚवं. संवंनिवं8्ቈ शसंकेय संवंके& पर लग*  /ग। 8 / 11 8. वंቔኔ- उपर/ቔኔ संनिवंदा संवं म एकेमश्ቔኔ मसिसंके मदाय रसिश 5000.00 रू. दाय /ग। इसंके अनिቔኔरिरቔኔ के/ई निवंश्ቧ वंቔኔ, मगई भा्ቈ, ग8 भा़቟ भा्ቈ इत्यदिदा P दिदाय जावंग ቔኔथा संनिवंदा नियሹኌቔኔ के अधि. वंቧኌ्ቧRके वंቔኔ वं8ቍኌ: के प्ቔቔኔ P /ग। 9. संनिवंदा पर नियቔኔ ्ቤሹኌቔኔ के/ संवं संम቎ኌ=ቔኔ पቐኋቔኔ, संनिवंदा नियनिवंቔኔ के Aसिसंयቔኔ सं ቍኌजाቔኔ अवंधि. ቔኔके संवं दाT गय A उसं अवंधि. के सिलय निकेसं भा ्ቚकेर के पश, उपदा, म8त्य लभा एवं निवं्ቈय संयቔኔ के प्ቔቔኔ  /ग। 10. आवंदा प्ቔ के संथा ्ቚधि.के8 ቔኔ अधि.केर ቛኋर जार निकेय गय छ.ग. म*ल निवंसं ्ቚमण प्ቔ के छय्ቚनिቔኔ संलग् केर आवंश्यके A। 11. वंसिछቔኔ ्ቚमण प्ቔ एवं अके सं*च स्वं ्ቚमणिणቔኔ छय्ቚनिቔኔ आवंदा दिदाके 21.03.2023 के/ संथा 05:00 बंजा ቔኔके पजाके8 ቔኔ डके / ቢኍड प/स्ट के मध्यम सं केय,लय, उप संचलके के8 नि्ቧ, के8 नि्ቧ निवंभाग बंलरमपर (छ.ग.) निप के/ड- 497119 म अनिवंय, रूप सं ्ቚ=ቔኔ / जा चनिए। नि.,रिरቔኔ निቔኔसिथा के पቐኋቔኔY ्ቚ=ቔኔ आवंदा प्ቔ स्वंकेर P निकेय जावंग। 12. ्ቤሹኌቔኔगቔኔ रूप सं सं. आवंदा प्ቔ स्वंकेर P निकेय जायग। 13. शसंकेय/अ:,शसंकेय सं(ओं म केय,रቔኔ केमचर के/ आवंदा प्ቔ निय/ቔኔ के मध्यम सं अपणि्ቈ ्ቚमण प्ቔ संनिቔኔ ्ቚस्ቔኔቔኔ केर अनिवंय, A। 14. अभावं ्ቚमण प्ቔ के संथा निय/्ቈ के नियሹኌቔኔ आदाश प्ቔ के स्वं्ቚमणिणቔኔ छय्ቚनिቔኔ ्ቚस्ቔኔቔኔ केर अनिवंय, A अन्यथा अभावं ቔኔ नि.,रिरቔኔ अके ्ቚदाय निकेय जा संभावं P /ग। 15. र/जागर केय,लय के जानिवंቔኔ पजाय ्ቅमके एवं दिदाके उल्लख केर ቔኔथा स्वं्ቚमणिणቔኔ छय्ቚनिቔኔ आवंदा के संथा संलग् केर अनिवंय, A। 16. अप*ण,, अቢኍ्ቖ एवं ्ቔदिट प*ण, आवंदा प्ቔ& के संबं. म के/ई सं*च P दाT जावंग। ऐसं आवंदा प्ቔ अमन्य केर दिदाय जावंग। 17. नियሹኌቔኔ ቔኔ सिसंफरिरश केर वंल निकेसं भा ्ቚकेर के दाबंवं डलवं वंल आवंदाके के आवंदा निरस्ቔኔ केर दिदाय जावंग। 18. उपर/ቔኔ वंसिछቔኔ य/ग्यቔኔ  रख वंल उम्मቛኋर आवंदा  केर ऐसं आवंदा पर निवंचर  निकेय जावंग। 19. सिलफफ के ऊपर आवंदिदाቔኔ पदा एवं परिरय/जा / निवंकेसं खण़्቟ के म अवंश्य सिलख। 20. यदिदा के/ई ्ቤሹኌቔኔ एके सं अधि.के मई्ቅ/वंटर शड संधिमनिቔኔ ቔኔ आवंदा केर चቔኔ A ቔኔ/ ्ቚत्यके मई्ቅ/वंटर शड संधिमनिቔኔ के सिलय प8थाके-प8थाके आवंदा प्ቔ जाम केर /ग। 21. आवंदा प्ቔ के संथा स्वंय के पቔኔ सिलख दा/ सिलफफ 25-25 रूपय के डके दिटकेट संनिቔኔ प्ቔ ्ቤवंर के सिलय संलग् निकेय जा आवंश्यके A। 9 / 11 22. निकेसं भा ቔኔर के निवंवंदा के ሹኌ(निቔኔ म केलटर सं अध्यቌኋ WCDC ቍኌजाल बंलरमपर-रमजागजा के निण,य अनिቔኔम रूप सं मन्य /ग।" 14. It is well settled law that the recruiting agency is to consider the candidature of candidate strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions provided under the advertisement and the rules if any framed for appointment on a particular post. It is not the case of respondent that under statute requisite qualification is mentioned for appointment of secretary (contract) for Watershed Committee, Tatapani which is not fulfilled by petitioner, but only objection raised in reply is that the experience certificate is of private institute. As there is no requirement under the advertisement that the experience certificate should be of Govt/semi-govt institute only, the objection raised by the respondent for not considering the experience certificate submitted by petitioner is not sustainable. Accordingly said objection is repelled. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court and Ors. Reported in 2024 INSC 847 in para no. 42 has held as under: We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms: (1) Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; (2) Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness; (3) The decision in K. Manjusree (supra) lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha (supra). Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) deals 10 / 11 with the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K. Manjusree (supra) deals with the right to be placed in the Select List. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues; (4) Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/ non- arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. (5) Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps; (6) Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list. 16. Also the Hon’ble Court in case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Ors reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85 in para no. 29 has held as under:- ‘29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are 11 / 11 afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.’ 17. From the aforementioned discussions, in the opinion of this Court five marks earlier awarded by respondent department while scrutinizing the application forms, to the petitioner against experience, is to be added for computing the merit of the petitioner with other eligible candidates. Accordingly the number which is awarded to petitioner based on scrutiny of his marks forming part of Annexure P-5 would be 67.9 in total. The selection of private respondent Dilip Kumar Ekka being earlier not forming part of the merit list and no explanation has been offered by State as to how his name is directly named in selection list, and after adding marks of experience to petitioner his selection, is not sustainable. Accordingly selection of respondent no. 4 is set aside. 18. Respondent authorities are directed to consider the candidature of petitioner pursuant to merit list prepared and forming part of Annexure P-5 dated 14.08.2024 and to publish the select list accordingly, and to issue appointment order thereafter. 19. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Alfiza