1 2026:CGHC:2610 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4320 of 2015 Vinay Kumar Jaiswal S/o Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village And Post Prem Nagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Registrar, Surguja University, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Anand Kumar, S/o Birendra Prasad, R/o Surguja Vishvavidyalaya Shikshan Vibhag, Near Government Rajmohini Devi Girls College, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Mukesh Nag, S/o Panna Lal Nag, R/o Surguja Vishvavidyalaya Shikshan Vibhag, Near Government Rajmohini Devi Girls College, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Mohd. Junaid Khan, S/o Mohd. Ayub Khan, R/o Surguja Vishvavidyalaya Shikshan Vibhag, Near Government Rajmohini Devi Girls College, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Khemkaran Ahirwar, S/o Babu Lal Ahirwar, R/o Surguja Vishvavidyalaya Shikshan Vibhag, Near Government Rajmohini Devi Girls College, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Patil, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 2 to 6 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.16 18:26:27 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 15/01/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble court may kind enough to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 08.07.2014 regarding appointment of Assistant Professor Im Pharmacy department issued by respondent no. 2. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble court may kind enough to issue an appropriate writ by directing the concerned respondent to issue fresh advertisement following proper reservation policy for the post of Assistant Professor in Pharmacy Department. 10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was the candidate in the selection process for appointment of Assistant Professor (Pharmacy), initiated by the respondent No. 2 for total 04 posts. As per the advertisement dated 09.09.2013, issued by the respondent No. 2, one post of Assistant Professor was reserved for SC category, one post for ST category and two posts for unreserved category. The petitioner had filled his application form under the unreserved category and participated in the entire selection process. He was also called for interview, which was to be held on 22.06.2014. However, he has not been selected in the final results declared by the respondent No. 2 on 08.07.2014. After declaration of the result, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 04.11.2015 3 challenging the final select list dated 08.07.2014 (Annexure P/1) and for a direction to issue fresh advertisement after following the reservation policy. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has deleted his initial prayer made in the writ petition and amended the prayer column, which reads as follows:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be issued direction to the respondent No. 2 for the compliance of the Notification dated 29.11.2012 Issued by the General Administration Department Raipur Regarding ratio of reservation criteria under OBC category. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be issued direction to the respondent No. 2 to crrect the appointment order dated 08.07.2014 as per reservation Roster in its true spirit and give appointment to the petitioner in OBC category on the post of the Assistant Professor in Pharmacy department being the eligibility of the present petitioner in pursuant to the advertisement dated 09/09/2013.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the reservation policy issued by the State Government as well as reservation policy applicable to the respondent No.2/university have not been followed in accordance with law, as there was no post reserved for OBC category at the time of issuance of advertisement for appointment of Assistant Professors. In the advertisement, at least one post should be reserved for OBC category as per the percentage of reservation issued by the GAD Department, Raipur. The reservation policy has not been followed by the respondent authorities while conducting the selection process and therefore, the entire selection process would be declared to be void. He would also submit that, the petitioner was constrained to submit his application 4 form under the unreserved category, as there was no provision for OBC category. Therefore, the respondent authorities may be directed to follow the reservation policy and to issue fresh advertisement for appointment on the post of Assistant Professors. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/university would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that, the as per the amended policy issued by the State Government, the reservation for OBC candidates was provided as 14%. Total four posts of the Assistant Professors were advertised and it would not be possible for the respondent/university to provide one post for OBC candidates, which would come in excess of the percentage as provided under the reservation policy for OBC category. He would also submit that, had it been a case, where number of posts are more, then the percentage could have been followed by the university. But in such conditions, when the total four posts have been advertised, it could not be possible for the university to reserve at least one post for OBC candidate, which would amount to more than 14%. He would further submit that, the petitioner had duly participated without raising any objection in the entire selection process, and it is only when, the results have been declared on 08.07.2014 and he was not selected, he filed the present writ petition challenging the entire process of selection right from the date of advertisement, which he cannot do. Once he has participated in the entire selection process, he cannot challenge the entire procedure by saying that the advertisement itself is bad in law or suffers from any deficiency. It is also submitted by 5 him that. after the subject advertisement, various other advertisements have been issued by the university, in which the reservation policy applicable to the university, has duly been followed and in the year 2019, an amended policy has been introduced with respect to reservation for SC/ST/OBC candidates for the universities throughout the country. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, as claimed in the present writ petition and his writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 would also support the action of the respondent No. 2/university and would also submit that, the petitioner cannot challenge the entire selection process after duly participating in it, and therefore, he is not entitled for any relief in the present writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner had earlier participated in the selection process under the unreserved category. However, he could not be selected when the result was declared on 08.07.2014 and it is only thereafter he filed the present writ petition challenging the advertisement. 7. In the matter of “Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar” 2010 (12) SCC 576, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered this aspect that, once the petitioner has participated in the entire selection process, he cannot challenge the validity of the advertisement. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- 6 “We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition.” 8. Further, in the matter of “Ramesh Chandra Shah and others v. Anil Joshi and others” 2013 (11) SCC 309, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:- “In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents. 26. Taking into consideration the entire facts of the case and the law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions, we are of the definite opinion that the Division Bench has committed grave error in law by passing the impugned judgment reversing the order passed by the learned Single Judge.” 9. From the aforesaid consideration that, the petitioner has already participated in the entire selection process and he could not be selected in the final select list, and thereafter, he has challenged the 7 advertisement for which he is not entitled to do so, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 10. The claim of the petitioner that, the respondent authorities may be directed to follow the reservation policy in its true spirit and letter, cannot be decided in the present writ petition, as the subject advertisement was of the year 2013 and by efflux of time and numerous changes in the reservation policy as well as introduction of new reservation policy for the universities in India, it would not be appropriate to issue any direction to the respondent authorities, as there is no allegation in the subsequent advertisement that, there is any violation of reservation policy by them. 11. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to interfere in the present writ petition granting any relief to the petitioner, and thereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved