1 CGHC010250002024 2026:CGHC:37208 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4333 of 2024 Ajay Kumar Sao S/o Shri Babaji Sao, Aged About 34 Years R/o Ho/115/1 Telipara Barida, P.O. - Lukapara, Tahsil-Saria, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Chhattisgarh Skill Development Technical Education And Employment Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director, Directorate Of Employment And Training Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2/State : Mr. DR Minj, Dy. Advocate General. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate on behalf of Dr. S. K. Pandey, Advocate. 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J Order on Board (19th August, 2026) This petition is delinked from WPS No.7152/2023, 8566/2024, 8035/2024 and 11957/2025. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for direction to respondents No. 1 & 2 to decide the application dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure P/8) of the petitioner for issuance of appointment letter of Training Officer (Carpenter) in his favour. 4. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that respondent No.2/Director, Directorate of Employment and Training, Raipur, issued an advertisement dated 5.5.2023 (Annexure P/1) and modified advertisement dated 13.5.2023 (Annexure P/2) for recruitment on various posts of Training Officers including Training Officer (Carpenter). The petitioner submitted his application for the post of Training Officer (Carpenter) against OBC category and secured 75.765 marks and 14th rank in the combined merit list (Annexure P/4) against OBC category (Non-Creamy Layer). However, despite the petitioner securing higher rank, he was not given appointment on the said post. Hence he 3 submitted an application dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure P/8) to respondent No.2, which has not been decided yet. Hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the advertisement dated 5.5.2023 (Annexure P/1), there were total 02 number of post of Training Officer (Carpenter) which was subsequently increased to 09 in the amended advertisement dated 13.5.2023 (Annexure P/2). In the said amended advertisement, the vacancy of the said post was as under: l- dz- in dk uke dqy fjfDr;ks dh oxZokj laa[;k dqy fjfDr;ks dh oxZokj laa[;k esa ls NRrhlx<+ ds LFkkuh; fuoklh efgykvks a ds fy;s vkjf{kr in dqy fjfDr;k s dh oxZokj laa[;k es a ls NRrhlx<+ ds LFkkuh; fuoklhsa HkwrioZ lSfudksa ds fy;s vkjf{kr in dqy fjfDr;ks esa ls fnO;kaxtuksaa ds fy;s vkjf{kr in ;ksx vuk v-tk- v-t-tk- v-fi-o- vuk v- tk- v- t- tk- v-fi- o- vuk v- tk- v- t- tk- v- fi- o- 4- izf'k{k.k vf/kdkjh] dkjisaVj 4 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (HI) 9 5.1 Thus, as per the amended advertisement, one post was vacant for OBC category. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s name finds place at S.No.14 in the combined merit list of all the candidates (Annexure P/4) for the post of Training Officer (Carpenter), despite that he has not been granted appointment. Hence she prays 4 that the respondents may be directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner for the said post. 6. State/respondent has filed its reply. Learned State counsel, referring to its reply, would submit that the petitioner had applied under the OBC category, for which only one post was reserved. The petitioner secured 14th rank in the combined merit list and one post of OBC category has been kept vacant by virtue of order dated 21.12.2023 passed by this Court in WPS No.8566/2023, parties being Bharti Vs. State of CG and others. Referring to Annexure P/4, he would submit that since only vacant post was there for OBC category candidate and the petitioner’s rank was 14th, therefore, there being other more meritorious candidates of OBC category available, the petitioner is not entitled to get appointment on the said vacant post. 7. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was called for documents verification vide Annexure P/5 in the fourth counseling held on 7.10.2023 and he was found eligible, despite that he has not been issued appointment letter only because of there being aforesaid stay order passed by this Court in WPS No.8566/2023 in the matter of Bharti Vs. State of CG and others whereas said petitioner Bharti has secured 15th rank i.e. below the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived from getting appointment on the said post only on account of stay order dated 21.12.2023. 5 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is undisputed that the petitioner secured 14th rank in the combined merit list (Annexure P/4) for the post of Training Officer (Carpenter). It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the amended advertisement dated 13.05.2023, one post was earmarked for the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) category. The petitioner was also called for document verification in the fourth counselling and was found eligible. However, mere inclusion in the merit list or participation in document verification does not, by itself, confer an indefeasible right to appointment. The petitioner can claim appointment only if, upon application of the applicable reservation and merit rules, he falls within the zone of selection against the available vacancy. 10. Perusal of the combined merit list reveals that five candidates belonging to the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) category had secured higher merit than the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim appointment merely on the basis of his 14th rank unless it is first established that the candidates placed above him have either been appointed against the UR/Open category or have otherwise ceased to be available for appointment against the OBC vacancy. The principle of equality in public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution requires that appointment be made strictly in accordance 6 with the prescribed selection criteria and comparative merit. A candidate lower in merit cannot ordinarily be appointed by overlooking candidates higher in merit who are otherwise eligible. 11. At the same time, the respondents cannot deny consideration of the petitioner merely because one OBC post was directed to be kept vacant pursuant to the interim order dated 21.12.2023 passed in WPS No.8566/2023. The said interim order does not create any substantive right in favour of a candidate having lower merit over a candidate placed higher in the same merit list. Admittedly, the petitioner in WPS No.8566/2023, namely Bharti, is placed at 15th rank whereas the petitioner herein is placed at 14th rank. Therefore, if the said vacant post is ultimately available for an OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) candidate, the petitioner herein cannot be excluded from consideration merely on account of the aforesaid interim order. 12. It is equally well settled that a select-list candidate has no absolute right to appointment merely by virtue of being included in the select/merit list, particularly when the selection is subject to availability of vacancies and fulfillment of the prescribed conditions. However, the State is equally bound to act fairly, transparently and in accordance with the notified recruitment procedure and cannot arbitrarily ignore a candidate higher in merit while considering a candidate lower in merit for the same vacancy. 7 13. In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to undertake a proper exercise by examining the status of the candidates placed above the petitioner in the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) merit list. If the candidates having higher merit have already been appointed against UR/Open vacancies or are otherwise not available for appointment against the OBC vacancy, and the petitioner fulfills all other eligibility conditions, his candidature shall be considered for appointment against the available OBC (Non- Creamy Layer) vacancy in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules. 14. The fact that the petitioner was called for document verification is a relevant circumstance indicating that his candidature was under active consideration; however, such verification cannot by itself be treated as an appointment or as creating an indefeasible right to appointment. His claim has to be determined on the basis of merit, category-wise reservation, availability of vacancy and the position of candidates higher in merit. 15. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner’s case against the available OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) vacancy for Training Officer (Carpenter), after examining the appointment/status of all candidates placed above him in the merit list. If, upon such consideration, the petitioner is found to be the next eligible and meritorious candidate and otherwise fulfills all prescribed 8 conditions, then appropriate appointment order shall be issued in accordance with law. The interim order dated 21.12.2023 passed in WPS No.8566/2023 shall not, by itself, operate to the prejudice of the petitioner, who admittedly has a higher merit position than the petitioner therein. 16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). 17. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Sd/ (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.08.20 15:46:43 +0530