1 2026:CGHC:25645 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6311 of 2018  Chandraprakash Kathale S/o Bhagwansingh Kathale Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Jewadan Khrud, Post Sonbarsa District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Urban Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through Its Examination Controller, Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Vikash Singh Kshetri Accountant, Nagar Panchayat Jarhi, District - Surajpur (C.G.), (Added As Per Honble Court Order Dated 28.04.2025) 4. Santosh Kumar Sahu Accountant, Nagar Panchayat Barsoor, District D.B. Dantewada (C.G.), (Added As Per Honble Court Order Dated 28.04.2025) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Zainab Vanak, Advocate along with Mr. Danish Siddiqui, Advocate For State : Mr. T.L. Bareth, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 23.6.2026 1) The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the advertisement Dated 12.02.2018 issued by the Chhattisgarh Urban Administration Department. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to issue a fresh Advertisement as per the Act/Rules of Reservation ensured under Chhattisgarh along with the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke liye Arakshan) (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 10.3 To kindly grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/ reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. 2) Facts of present case are that Directorate of Urban Administration and Development, State of Chhattisgarh issued an advertisement on 12.2.2018 for appointment on 103 posts of Accountant in various Nagar Panchayats and Municipal Councils across the entire State. Eligiblity criteria for appointment to the said post was degree of Bachelor in Commerce and degree/ diploma in computer application. Petitioner is resident of state of Chhattisgarh and belongs to Scheduled Caste category. He fulfilled the eligibility criteria and applied for the aforesaid post and as per the program mentioned in the advertisement, written examination was conducted and result was declared by 3 respondent – VYAPAM. Petitioner secured 72.449 marks but his name was not considered for appointment. Petitioner alleges that though advertisement was issued for filling up 103 vacant posts but no reservation was provided for members of backward classes in the recruitment process contrary to the reservation applicable at the relevant time. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is resident of State of Chhattisgarh ; he belongs to Scheduled Caste category and he secured 72.449 marks in written examination but the entire recruitment process stood vitiated as respondent authorities failed to apply the prevailing reservation ratio against the advertised vacancies. She prays to quash the advertisement dated 12.2.2018. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents submit that respondent authorities justified in non- applying the reservation in the recruitment process as the number of vacancy in each of the 103 Nagar Panchayats and Municipal Councils was one and petitioner was aware of this fact. They contend that for each urban local body, one post of Accountant has been sanctioned and it is well settled principle of law that single vacancy cannot be reserved as it would amount to 100% reservation. In support thereof, they have placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Chakradhar Paswan Versus State of Bihar and Others1. 1. (1988) 2 SCC 214 4 They argue that present writ petition being devoid of merit and substance is liable to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 6) Admittedly, advertisement was issued for filling up 103 posts of Accountant but there was only one sanctioned and vacant post in each urban local body thus it was a single post cadre. It is apparent that reservation was not provided as per Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Janjatiyon Aur Anya Pichhde Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) (Amended) Rules, 2011, which provides 12% reservation for Scheduled Castes ; 32% reservation for Scheduled Tribes and 14% reservation for Other Backward Classes. In absence of such provision in the advertisement, petitioner cannot claim appointment based on his particular category. 7) In Dr. Chakradhar Paswan (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court firmly held that solitary or isolated posts within the cadre cannot be reserved for backward classes as reserving a single post would amount to providing 100% reservation which would violate the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8) In Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh Versus Faculty Association and Others2, Hon’ble 2. (1998) 4 SCC 1 5 Supreme Court dealt with the scope of reservation/ concession against single post cadre and approved the view taken in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan (supra) holding that there cannot be any reservation in single post cadre. Relevant paragraphs 34 to 37 read as under :- “34. In a single post cadre, reservation at any point of time on account of rotation of roster is bound to bring about a situation where such single post in the cadre will be kept reserved exclusively for the members of the backward classes and in total exclusion of the general embers of the public. Such total exclusion of general members of the public and cent percent reservation for the backward classes is not permissible within the constitutional frame work. The decisions of this Court to this effect over the decades have been consistent. 35. Hence, until there is plurality of posts in a cadre the question of reservation will not arise because any attempt of reservation by whatever means and even with device of rotation of roster in a single post cadre is bound to create 100% reservation of such post whenever such reservation is to be implemented. The device of rotation of roster in respect of single post cadre will only mean that on some occasions there will be complete reservation and the appointment to such post is kept out of bound to the members of a large segment of the community who do not belong to any reserved class, but on some other occasions the post will be available for open competition when in fact on all such occasions, a single post cadre should have been filled only by open competition amongst all segments of the society. 36. Mr. Kapil Sibal has contended that in some higher echleon of service in educational and technical institution where special expertise is necessary to hold superior posts, like Professors and Readers there should not be reservation even if there are plurality of posts in such cadre as indicated in the majority view in Indra Sawhney's case. It is, however, not necessary for us to decide the said contention for the purpose of disposal of these matters, where the question of reservation in single cadre post calls for decision. 6 37. We, therefore, approve the view taken in Chakradhar's case that there can not be any reservation in a single post cadre and we do not approve the reasonings in Madhav's case, Brij Lal Thakur's case and Bageswari Prasad's case upholding reservation in a single post cadre either directly or by device of rotation of roster point. Accordingly, the impugned decision in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education Research can not also sustained. The Review Petition made in civil appeal No. 3175 of 1997 in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education Research, Chandigarh, is therefore allowed and the judgment dated may 2, 1997 passed in civil Appeal No. 3175 of 1997 is set aside.” 9) It is pertinent to mention that petitioner participated in the recruitment process knowing fully well the terms and conditions of the advertisement and upon being unsuccessful, he has preferred this writ petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anupal Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department and Others3, while dealing with the similar issue in paragraphs 55 to 61, held as under: “55. Having participated in the interview, the private respondents cannot challenge the Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2014 and the selection. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that after the revised notification dated 12.10.2014, the private respondents participated in the interview without protest and only after the result was announced and finding that they were not selected, the private respondents chose to challenge the revised notification dated 12.10.2014 and the private respondents are estopped from challenging the selection process. It is a settled law that a person having consciously participated in the interview cannot turn around and challenge the selection process. 56. Observing that the result of the interview cannot be challenged by a candidate who has participated in the interview and has taken the chance to get selected at the 3. (2020) 2 SCC 173 7 said interview and ultimately, finds himself to be unsuccessful, in Madan Lal and Others v. State of J&K and Others (1995) 3 SCC 486, it was held as under:- “9. ….. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. …..” 57. In K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others (2006) 6 SCC 395, it was held as under:- “73. The appellant-petitioners having participated in the interview in this background, it is not open to the appellant-petitioners to turn round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contend that the provision of a minimum mark for the interview was not proper……..”. 58. In Union of India and Others v. S. Vinodh Kumar and Others (2007) 8 SCC 100, it was held as under:- “19. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla (2002) 6 SCC 127, it was further observed:- “34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not ‘palatable’ to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process.” 59. Same principle was reiterated in Sadananda Halo and Others v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and Others (2008) 4 SCC 619 wherein, it was held as under:- “59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this 8 general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100 ……The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986 Supp SCC 285, where it has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise……..” 61. The private respondents knew that by the revised notification dated 12.10.2014, the number of vacancies of different categories have been changed and knowing the same, they participated in the interview and have taken a chance and opportunity thereon without any protest. Having participated in the interview and having failed in the final selection, it is not open to the private respondents to turn around and challenge the revised notification dated 12.10.2014 and the revised requisition of the number of vacancies in different categories. Having regard to the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court, the High Court should not have granted any relief to the private respondents/intervenors.” 10) In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the decision taken by the respondent authorities with regard to non-application of reservation in the impugned recruitment process appears to be just and proper and no case is made out for interference. 11) In result, the instant writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.06.29 16:00:35 +0530