1 CGHC010009322020 2026:CGHC:34578 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 296 of 2020 Santosh Kumar Mandal, S/o. Late Shri Saryug Mandal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. Village And Post- Patna, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, Police Station- Patna, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Police Station- Rakhi, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary, Department Of Public Health Engineering, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Police Station- Rakhi, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Police Station- Rakhi, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Engineering-In-Chief, Water Resources Department, Chhattisgarh, Sihawa Bhawan, Civil Line, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.08.10 10:32:29 +0530 2 5 – Director, Sainik Kalyan Board, Directorate, Collectorate Campus, Civil Lines, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Through The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For State-Respondents : Mr. Amit Buxy, Dy. Govt. Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 06.08.2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 05.12.2019, by which the petitioner’s representation has been rejected by the State Government finding no merit. 2. Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order is unsustainable and bad in law, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 3. Mr. Amit Buxy, learned State counsel, would support the impugned order and submit that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents meticulously. 5. On 01.02.2013, an advertisement was issued by the office of the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department for direct recruitment on 116 vacant posts of Sub Engineer (Electrical/ Mechanical) to be conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (VYAPAM). Out of these, 5 posts were reserved for the Ex-servicemen category. After due recruitment process, the appointment order of 102 persons were issued and further, an appointment order was issued for 1 candidate in respect of Ex- servicemen category and 4 posts remained vacant for the Ex- servicemen category. On 09.05.2014, the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, made a request to the State Government for relaxation of the rules under Rule 4(3) of the Chhattisgarh Ex- Servicemen (Reservation of Vacancies in the State Civil Services & Posts Class-III & Class-IV) Rules, 1985 (for short “the Rules of 1985”), which this Court has directed to take a decision expeditiously in WPS No.1539/2014. Now it has been rejected holding that the competent authority has not granted no objection. 6. At this stage, Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 1985 may be noticed herein : “4. Reservation of vacancies. (1)…...xxx…..xxx…..xxx…. 4 (2)…..xxx…..xxx….xxx….. (3) No vacancy reserved for ex-servicemen in a post to be filled otherwise than on the results of an open competitive examination, shall be filled by the appointing authority by any general candidate, until and unless the said authority :- (i) has obtained a "Non-availability Certificate" from the Employment Exchange (Where a requisition is placed on an Employment Exchange); (ii) has verified the non-availability of a suitable candidate by reference to the Director General, Resettlement and recorded a certificate to that effect; and (iii) has obtained approval of the State Government.” 7. A careful perusal of the Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 1985 would show that the rule making authority has clearly mandated that no vacancy reserved for ex-servicemen to be filled otherwise than on the results of an open competitive examination by the appointing authority until and unless the said authority has obtained a “non-availability certificate” from the Employment Exchange; and has verified the non-availability of a suitable candidate by reference to the Director General, Resettlement and recorded a certificate to that effect; and has obtained approval from the State Government. 8. 8. In this case, the aforesaid three conditions precedent, as required under Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 1985, are absolutely missing. The petitioner, being a candidate of general category, has no vested right in his favour to claim appointment against a post exclusively 5 reserved for ex-servicemen, particularly when the mandate of Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 1985 is missing, more particularly no writ can be issued contrary to the Rules of 1985. 9. In that view of the matter, the State Government has rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner who belongs to general category not being ex-servicemen. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this petition, it deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge