1 2026:CGHC:22759 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1219 of 2021 1 - Neeraj Lahre S/o Nagesh Lahre Aged About 21 Years R/o Behind Shiv Mandir, Vidya Nagar, P. O. Deepupara, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, New Delhi 2 - The Director Staff Selection Commission, Block No. 12, 5th Floor, C. G. O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 11003 3 - The Regional Director Staff Selection Commission Office At L-7, Near, S Eastern Railway Line Anupam Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Maheshwari, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 14.5.2026 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to complete and fulfill the recruitment process for the post of Constable NIRMALA RAO 2 (G.D.) of Chhattisgarh within stipulated time as per terms and condition of note -II of para 2 of published notice dated 21.07.2018, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2) The facts, in brief, are that an advertisement was issued by respondent No.2 on 21.7.2018 for filling up the post of Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF, SSB, ITBP, AR, NIA and SSF. Initially, the total number of vacancies was of 54,953 posts, which was subsequently revised to 60,210 posts. Out of the total vacancies, 10% were reserved for Ex-servicemen. The petitioner submitted his online application for the post of Constable (GD) for the State of Chhattisgarh. An admit card was issued to him, and thereafter, the petitioner participated in the written examination and physical ability test. The petitioner secured 53.64897 in the examination. The result was published in the website on 21.1.2021 but the petitioner could not be selected. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that according to the advertisement, in the absence of candidates belonging to the Ex-servicemen category, the respondents ought to have filled-up the posts from the respective categories. He would submit that the petitioner secured 53.64897 marks in the written examination and his candidature ought to have been considered against the sanctioned and vacant posts. It is argued that the respondents may be directed to complete the recruitment process in 3 accordance with para 2 of Note-II of the advertisement dated 21.7.2018. 4) Though there is no representation on behalf of the respondents but a counter-affidavit was filed on 24.6.2025. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder thereto. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. 6) Admittedly, the petitioner applied and participated in the examination as a Scheduled Caste candidate for the post of Constable (GD). The roll number of the petitioner was 6202007632. He secured a total of 53.64897 marks in the written examination. He was called for computer test examination and the final result was published in the web-site on 21.1.2021. The petitioner did not find his name in the said list and thereafter, he preferred the present writ petition. The cut-off marks for different posts were higher than the marks secured by the petitioner. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that subsequent to the recruitment process of the year 2018, the recruitment processes for the post of Constable (GD) for the years 2021, 2022 and 2024 have already been completed, and the recruitment process for the year 2025 was underway at the time of filing of counter-affidavit. It appears that the petitioner misconstrued the para-2 (Note-II) of the advertisement, which prescribes 10% reservation of vacancies for Ex-servicemen. It is stated therein that if Constable Ex- 4 servicemen candidates are not available, the vacancies reserved for them would be filled by non-Ex-servicemen candidates belonging to the respective categories. It is a well-settled principle of law that reservation for Other Backward Classes, Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes is vertical reservation, whereas reservation provided to Ex-servicemen is horizontal reservation. In the absence of suitable Ex-servicemen candidates, the posts were filled from the respective categories, and since the petitioner could not secure the qualifying marks, he was not considered for appointment. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to grant relief sought by the petitioner in the instant petition. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi