1 / 7 2026:CGHC:26550 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1994 of 2026 Madhvesh Chandravanshi S/o Shri Ramsharan Chandravanshi, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Paraswara, Post- Pipiriya, Development Block- Kawardha, District Kabirdham C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur C.G. 2 - Director General of Police, Police Headquarters (PHQ), Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur C.G. 3 - Superintendent of Police, Balod, District Balod C.G. 4 - Superintendent of Police, Durg, District Durg C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 30/06/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition calling in question the legality and validity of the order dated 01.02.2026 passed by the Superintendent of Police, District Durg, whereby his claim for grant of five bonus marks on the strength of the NSS (National Service Scheme) ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.07.02 18:03:30 +0530 2 / 7 Certificate in the recruitment process for the post of Constable (GD) has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.01.2024 issued for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD), the petitioner submitted his candidature under the OBC category for the districts of Balod and Durg. He participated in the selection process and appeared for document verification on 23.11.2024 for District Balod and on 07.01.2025 for District Durg. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he possessed the NSS Certificate entitling him to five bonus marks under Clause 9 of the advertisement, the respondents failed to award the said bonus marks, resulting in his non-selection. 3. Prior to filing the present petition, the petitioner had preferred WPS No.401 of 2026 before this Court seeking consideration of his representation. By order dated 15.01.2026, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law within a period of three weeks. Pursuant thereto, the competent authority considered the representation and rejected the same by the impugned order dated 01.02.2026 holding that the petitioner had not produced the original NSS Certificate during document verification for award of five bonus marks and further mentioned in the order impugned that the recruitment process had already attained finality and select list has duly been published. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3 / 7 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was fully eligible for grant of five bonus marks under Clause 9 of the recruitment advertisement on account of possessing a valid NSS Certificate. It is contended that denial of the bonus marks is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the terms of the advertisement as well as the Recruitment Rules. It is further submitted that the petitioner had produced the NSS Certificate during the recruitment process and the respondents have wrongly recorded that the certificate was not submitted. According to the petitioner, the verification sheet itself contains blank columns, thereby indicating that the verification was not properly carried out. It is argued that similarly situated candidates possessing NCC/NSS certificates have been granted bonus marks and denial of the same benefit to the petitioner amounts to hostile discrimination offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel would further submit that administrative authorities are bound to act fairly and cannot deprive an eligible candidate of the benefit flowing from the terms of the advertisement on account of procedural lapses attributable to the authorities themselves. In support of her submissions, learned counsel places reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others {(2024) 11 SCC 785}. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the respondents be directed to award five bonus marks to the petitioner and grant him consequential appointment. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner 4 / 7 is wholly misconceived and deserves to be rejected. It is contended that during document verification conducted on 23.11.2024 for District Balod and 07.01.2025 for District Durg, the petitioner failed to produce the original NSS Certificate. Since the original certificate was not produced before the Verification Committee, the petitioner was rightly not awarded the bonus marks. It is further submitted that the petitioner's representation was considered strictly in terms of the order passed by this Court in WPS No.401 of 2026 and, upon verification of the original recruitment record, the competent authority found that the petitioner had not produced the original certificate at the relevant stage. Consequently, the representation was rejected by a reasoned order dated 01.02.2026. It is also submitted that the entire recruitment process has already been concluded and the final select list has been published. Interference at this belated stage would unsettle a completed selection and adversely affect the rights of selected candidates who are not before this Court. Learned State counsel therefore prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. It is not in dispute that the earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioner being WPS No.401 of 2026 was disposed of by this Court merely directing the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law. The said direction did not confer any substantive right upon the petitioner nor did it record any finding regarding his entitlement to bonus marks. 8. Pursuant to the said direction, the competent authority examined the 5 / 7 original recruitment record relating to the petitioner and passed a reasoned order dated 01.02.2026. The record reveals that at the time of document verification conducted on 23.11.2024 for District Balod and 07.01.2025 for District Durg, the petitioner did not produce the original NSS Certificate before the Verification Committee. Once the original certificate was not produced at the stage prescribed under the recruitment process, the respondents were justified in not extending the benefit of bonus marks. 9. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot undertake a roving enquiry into disputed questions of fact regarding alleged production of documents during the verification process, particularly when the official recruitment record does not support the petitioner's claim. It is also significant that the recruitment process has already concluded and the final select list has been published. The law is well settled that after completion of the selection process and publication of the final select list, the Court ought not to interfere except in cases of manifest illegality or patent arbitrariness. No such exceptional circumstance is made out in the present case. Even the petitioner has not established the fact by producing cogent material that on the date of document verification, the valid NSS certificate had duly been produced by him before the authority concerned and despite the said fact the authorities failed to award bonus marks to him. 10. From the material available on record, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has not produced the NSS certificate acquired by him at any stage. Even at the time of document verification also the petitioner has 6 / 7 not produced the same. Had it been a case if the petitioner produced the NSS certificate at the time of document verification five bonus marks would have been awarded to him. 11. The petitioner, in fact, came with the NSS certificate for award of bonus marks much after publication of the select list and after completion of the entire selection process. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for allotment of bonus marks. Further, bare perusal of the document verification sheet (Annexure R/2), in respect of the petitioner, it appears that the documents produced by the petitioner have duly been verified i.e. domicile of the Chhattisgarh, live registration of employment office, document for attestation of date of birth, education certificate, OBC certificate (non-creamy layer), whereas the column against the bonus marks is blank. The said original document verification sheet contains the signature of the petitioner, Assistant Sub Inspector, District Durg, C.G. and also the signature of the document checking Officer of recruitment committee with seal. Thus, the authorities have acted absolutely in consonance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement and they have not flouted any of the rules/regulations. 12. As far as the reliance placed by the petitioner upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) is concerned, in the said case it has been held that the cancellation of candidature called for only for grave lapses and not trivial ommissions or errors. In fact, the present is a case of grave lapses because the important certificate on the basis of which the petitioner is entitled for 05 bonus marks has not been produced at the time of document verification 7 / 7 and as such the cancellation of his candidature is just and proper. 13. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has utterly failed to establish that the impugned order suffers from illegality, perversity or arbitrariness warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, no relief can be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu