1 CGHC010185282026 2026:CGHC:27890-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 558 of 2026 1 - Rakesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Late Shri Lakhan Lal Dewangan Aged About 39 Years Working As Accountant And Posted At Office Of Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Korba Circle-2, Collector Premises Commercial Tax Bhawan, Korba District Korba (C.G.) 2 - Abbas Ali S/o Late Shri Mohd Hussain Meman Aged About 41 Years Working As Data Entry Operator, And Posted At Office Of Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Korba Circle-2, Collector Premises Commercial Tax Bhawan, Korba District Korba (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar New Raipru, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner State Tax Commercial Tax Department, G.S.T. Bhawan, North Block Sector-19, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Suresh Kumar Gupta Working As Assistant Grade-II At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division-1 Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Prabhat Chandra Tiwari Working As Assistant Grade-III At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Bilaspur Division-II Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ajay Kaushik Working As Accountant At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division-II Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - Hitesh Kumar Dubey Working As Data Entry Operator At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Bilaspur Division- II Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 7 - Smt Deepa Udhawani Working As Assistant Grade-III At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division- II Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 8 - Smt Rinu Sonkar Working As Assistant Grade-III At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division-I Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 9 - Dipesh Kumar Sahu Working As Assistant Grade - III At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division-Ii Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 10 - Smt Gayatri Sinha Working As Assistant Grade - II At Office Of Commissioner State Tax Head Office Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 11 - Gajendra Kumar Tiwari Working As Accountant At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division-I Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 12 - Om Prakash Sahu Working As Ashu Clerk At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Durg Division Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 13 - Manish Chelaik Working As Data Entry Operator At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division-I Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 14 - Tamradwaj Sahu Working As Assistant Grade - III At Office Of Commissioner State Tax, Head Office Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 15 - Deepak Turyakar Working As Assistant Grade - II At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division-I Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 16 - Amar Singh Kanwar Working As Assistant Grade - II At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Bilaspur Division-Ii Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 17 - Uderam Dhruw Working As Data Entry Operator At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division-I Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 18 - Ramesh Kumar Dhritlahre Working As Assistant Grade - III At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division-I Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 19 - Ku. Dipti Markam Working As Assistant Grade - II At The Office Of Commissioner State Tax Head Office Chhattisgarh Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 20 - Chandrakant Thakur Working As Assistant Grade - II At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Durg, Division Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 21 - Deepak Kujur Working As Assistant Grade - III At Office Of Commissioner State Tax Head Office Chhattisgarh Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 22 - Rakesh Kumar Minj Working As Assistant Grade - II At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Bilaspur Division-I Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 23 - Smt Nandani Sahu Working As Assistant Grade-III At Office Of Joint Commissioner, State Tax Raipur Division-1, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2/ State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General For Respondent Nos. 3 to 23 : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge JUDGMENT ON BOARD Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07 .0 7 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.3 to 23. 2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellants, who were petitioners in the writ petition have challenged the order dated 01.04.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 513 of 2023 (Rakesh Kumar Dewangan & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/ appellants herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4 3. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that an advertisement was issued on 28.04.2022 for departmental candidates inviting applications for the post of State Tax Inspector and written examination was held on 26.06.2022. As per condition No. 2 enumerated in the advertisement, the recruitment was to be done in accordance with Schedule-IV of C.G. Subordinate Class- III Executive Recruitment Rules 1966 (hereinafter “Rules, 1966”), from the clerical grade on the post of State Tax Inspector. As per schedule-IV of Rules 1966, the selection was to be made by adding marks obtained in the written examination and valuation of last 5 years confidential report. As per clause V (2) of Schedule IV, 20 numbers was to be given for confidential report of each year as for Excellent very good-20 numbers, Good-15 numbers, Average- 10 numbers. The petitioners, who are clerical grade employee and having more than 5 years of experience, also appeared in the examination. However, without declaring the merit list directly selection list has been issued on 01.07.2022 selecting 21 private respondents and even no waiting list was published. Thereafter, on the same date i.e. 01.07.2022, appointment order have also been issued in favour of the private respondents. It is noteworthy to mention that after commencement of the recruitment process, the State Government had notified new Rules on 19.05.2022 namely Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Class-III Executive Recruitment and Condition of Service Rules 2022 (hereinafter “Rules, 2022”). The method of awarding marks on the basis of 5 confidential report was changed in the new rules as for Excellent- 20, Very good -16, Good-12, Average -08. The petitioners came to know that the recruitment process was completed on the basis of New Rules of 2022 and not on the basis of Rules 1966. As per information, written examination was conducted on 26.06.2022 as per earlier Rules 1966 and numbers of Confidential Report was granted to the candidates as per subsequent Rules of 2022. It is well settled that if any rules is amended during the recruitment process, then the same does not affect the continuing recruitment process and the same has to be completed under earlier Rules 1966. The non-publication of merit list is again major illegality and even, the numbers of selected candidates and last selected candidate has not been disclosed, which is apparently illegal, and whole selection process is vitiated on this ground. The petitioners have moved Right to Information application for knowing the numbers of the candidate on the basis of confidential report but the same has been denied by letter dated 16.08.2022. The petitioners have also moved representation under RTI Act, in which, they have shown how their answer sheet has been manipulated in respect of marks. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred writ petition before this Court being WPS No.513 of 2023 challenging the impugned select list dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure P/1) as well as appointment order dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure P/2) passed by the office of Commissioner State Tax Chhattisgarh, Raipur and the said writ petition was 6 dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 01.04.2026. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge gravely erred in dismissing the writ petition by overlooking the settled principle that the rules governing a recruitment process cannot be altered after the process has commenced. It is contended that the advertisement dated 28.04.2022 specifically stipulated that the recruitment to the post of State Tax Inspector would be governed by the Chhattisgarh Subordinate Class-III Executive Recruitment Rules, 1966. The written examination was also conducted under the said Rules; however, while preparing the final merit list, the respondents adopted the marking pattern prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Class-III Executive Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2022, which came into force after the commencement of the recruitment process. Such change in the method of awarding marks for Annual Confidential Reports amounts to changing the "rules of the game" midway, which is impermissible in law. Reliance is placed upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak & Others v. Rajasthan High Court & Others, 2025 (2) SCC 1, wherein it has been held that the norms of selection cannot be altered after the commencement of the selection process. Further reliance is placed on Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna, (2005) 4 SCC 154, and 7 Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University, (2009) 4 SCC 555, reiterating that recruitment must be concluded under the rules prevailing on the date of initiation unless the amended rules expressly operate retrospectively. It is further submitted that the entire selection process lacks transparency, inasmuch as no merit list or waiting list was published and the marks obtained by the selected candidates, including the marks awarded on the basis of Annual Confidential Reports, were never disclosed. Even information sought under the Right to Information Act was denied by the authorities. According to the appellants, the refusal to disclose the evaluation records coupled with the issuance of the select list and appointment orders on the very same day casts serious doubt upon the fairness of the recruitment process. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge be set aside, the select list and consequential appointments dated 01.07.2022 be quashed, and the respondents be directed to undertake the selection afresh in accordance with the Rules, 1966. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel would support the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and submit that the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Class-III Executive Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2022 came into force on 19.05.2022, prior to the preparation of the select list. Clause 17 of the Rules, 2022 specifically repealed the earlier Rules of 1966 and provided that all actions thereafter would be governed by the new Rules. It 8 is contended that the authorities rightly prepared the select list by applying the Rules, 2022, which were in force on the date of consideration and finalization of the selection. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, (2023) 3 SCC 773, wherein it has been held that a candidate has only a right to be considered in accordance with the rules in force on the date of consideration and acquires no vested right to be considered under repealed rules. It is further submitted that the appellants have failed to establish any prejudice caused to them by the revised marking pattern. The eligibility criteria and the mode of selection remained unchanged, the only modification being a rational redistribution of marks under the Annual Confidential Report component. The Rules, 2022 merely refined the evaluation process by separately recognizing the categories of "Excellent" and "Very Good" to ensure a more merit-oriented assessment. In the absence of any allegation of mala fides, arbitrariness, or discriminatory treatment, no interference with the completed recruitment process is warranted. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents would adopt the submissions advanced on behalf of the State and further contend that the private respondents were selected through a duly conducted recruitment process and have been serving on the post of State Tax Inspector since 01.07.2022. They are bona fide appointees who have acquired valuable rights by 9 virtue of their appointments. It is submitted that the appellants have neither challenged the constitutional validity of the Rules, 2022 nor demonstrated that the revised marking scheme resulted in any actual prejudice affecting the outcome of the selection. It is further contended that the doctrine prohibiting a change in the "rules of the game" is inapplicable to the facts of the present case since neither the eligibility conditions nor the essential criteria of selection were altered. The recruitment continued to be based upon a written examination and assessment of Annual Confidential Reports; only the distribution of marks within the ACR component was rationalized to distinguish between candidates securing "Excellent" and "Very Good" gradings. Such refinement promotes merit rather than affecting substantive rights. Having participated in the recruitment process without objection, the appellants are estopped from challenging the selection after being declared unsuccessful. Therefore, the appeal deserves dismissal. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the material available on record, we find no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. It is an admitted position that before the preparation of the select list, the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Class-III Executive Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2022 had come into force and Clause 17 thereof expressly repealed the earlier Rules of 1966. The appellants have not challenged the validity of the Rules, 2022 nor demonstrated that the statutory repeal was unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. 10 In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, the applicable rules are those in force on the date of consideration unless a contrary intention is evident. 8. We are also unable to accept the contention that the respondents altered the "rules of the game" after commencement of the recruitment process. The eligibility criteria, source of recruitment, and the essential method of selection continued to remain the same. The only modification was in the manner of assigning marks for different gradings under the Annual Confidential Reports, whereby "Excellent" and "Very Good" were separately classified. Such modification does not amount to changing the fundamental criteria of selection but merely introduces a more rational and merit-based evaluation. Significantly, the appellants have failed to place any material demonstrating that the revised marking pattern caused actual prejudice or that they would have been selected had the Rules, 1966 been applied. Mere assertion of prejudice, unsupported by any comparative analysis, cannot constitute a ground for judicial interference. 9. The grievance regarding non-publication of the merit list or denial of information under the Right to Information Act, by itself, is also insufficient to invalidate an otherwise completed recruitment process, particularly in the absence of any allegation or proof of mala fides, manipulation, or arbitrariness. The private 11 respondents have been serving on the promotional posts for a considerable period pursuant to a completed selection, and interference at this stage would unsettle settled rights without any compelling legal justification. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the selection process. The appellants have failed to establish any violation of a statutory provision or any infringement of their enforceable legal rights warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 11. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra