1 CGHC010260562023 2026:CGHC:34175 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5685 of 2023 1 - Umesh Kujur S/o Prakash Kujur Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Lodha Amba, Post- Harradand, Tahsil And Police Station-Kansabel, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Development Commissioner Development Commissioner Office, Indravati Bhawan, Block-1, Ground Floor Block No. 43 (C I V), Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Upper Development Commissioner Development Commissioner Office, Indravati Bhawan, Block-1, Ground Floor Block No. 43 (C I V), Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Kishan Kumar Sonkar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Panel Lawyer. (Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 05/08/2026 RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.08.12 11:04:19 +0530 2 1. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his candidature for appointment to the post of Assistant Development Extension Officer (hereinafter referred to as “ADEO”) under the Ex-Serviceman (Scheduled Tribe) category pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.09.2017 (Annexure P-1). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the petition would submit that respondent No.3 issued an advertisement dated 05.09.2017 (Annexure P-1) inviting applications for recruitment to 213 posts of ADEO, out of which, 63 posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category, and out of those 63 posts, three posts were reserved for Ex-Serviceman category. He further submits that the petitioner, being an ex-serviceman belongs to the ST category, applied for the said post and successfully qualified the written examination. He also submitted all the necessary documents in support of his claim as an ex-serviceman retired from the Indian Army. Learned counsel further submits that according to merit list published by respondent authorities, the petitioner secured 650th rank in the Ex-Serviceman category. Thereafter, the respondent authorities issued first select list on 18.09.2018 (Annexure R-5) and the second select list on 01.03.2019 (Annexure P-4), wherein only one candidate was appointed against the three reserved posts under the Ex- Serviceman (ST) category, while the remaining two posts were left 3 vacant. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking the relief stated in opening paragraph. 3. The respondents/State have filed its reply. Learned State counsel, referring to its reply, submits that the petitioner had applied under the Ex-Serviceman (ST) category, but as per Annexure R-10, more than 100 candidates were included in the merit list of the said category after the written examination, and the petitioner secured approximately the 114th position therein. He further submits that, in the first slot, 30 candidates of the Ex-Serviceman (ST) category were called for document verification on 23.02.2019, out of them, only one candidate, namely, Bhanwer Singh Shori was found eligible, and was consequently appointed. The remaining candidates mentioned in list (page 48 of the reply) either remained absent or submitted applications stating that they did not belong to the Ex-Serviceman category. He further submits that after verification of the documents of eligible candidates, the first select list (Annexure R-5) was issued on 18.09.2018 and thereafter the second select list (Annexure P-4) was issued on 01.03.2019. 4. Learned State counsel referring to the Circular dated 18.06.1986 (Annexure R-1) issued by the General Administration Department, erstwhile Government of Madhya Pradesh submits that as per the aforesaid circular, a select list issued by the Department remains valid only for one year from the date of its publication. However, in the instant case, since the last select list was published on 4 01.03.2019, the petitioner ought to have filed instant petition within the validity period of the select list. But, the present writ petition was filed by him only on 30.07.2023 hence, the same deserves to be rejected on this ground alone. It is also submitted that, as the petitioner’s rank was beyond the first 100 candidates in the Ex-serviceman (ST) category, he was never called for document verification. Instead, only one candidate, namely, Bhanwer Singh Shori, was found eligible in the aforesaid category and was consequently appointed to the said post. Hence, it is prayed that the writ petition deserves to be rejected. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Admittedly, the advertisement dated 05.09.2017 (Annexure P-1) was issued for recruitment to 213 posts of ADEO, out of which three posts were reserved for candidates belonging to Ex- Serviceman (ST) category. It is also undisputed that the petitioner had applied under the said reserved category. 7. Learned State counsel, while referring to Annexure R-10, which is list of eligible candidates of ex-serviceman ST category, submits that the petitioner secured a comparatively lower rank in the merit list and, therefore, was not called for document verification. When a specific question was posed to the learned State counsel as to how many candidates from the merit list (Annexure R-10) were actually called for document verification, he draws attention of this 5 Court to page 48 of its reply, which shows that only 27 candidates of the Ex-Serviceman (ST) category were called for document verification on 23.02.2019. Out of those candidates, only one candidate, namely, Bhanwer Singh Shori was found eligible, whereas the remaining candidates either remained absent or submitted applications that they did not belong to the Ex- Serviceman category. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that, although the first select list (Annexure R-5) contains a note stating that no suitable candidate was found under the Ex-Serviceman (ST) category, but the respondents have not placed on record any material to demonstrate the fact that, prior to publication of the select list, any subsequent batch of candidates from the merit list (Annexure R- 10) was called for document verification. It appears that, after the document verification on 23.02.2019, no other candidates of the Ex-Serviceman (ST) category had been called for document verification 9. In the opinion of this Court, once only one candidate was found eligible against three reserved posts, it was incumbent upon the respondent authorities to call the next slot of the eligible candidates from the merit list (Annexure R-10) for document verification until all three reserved posts were duly filled or the merit list exhausted. However, the respondent authorities called candidates for document verification only once, vide page No. 48, for the said category. This fact shows that the respondent 6 authorities had not performed their duty in accordance with law. In other words, they deprived other eligible candidates of ex-service men from ST category of getting appointment to the said post. If, after calling the slot of other candidates from Annexure R-10 in the said category as per the rank, three candidates would have selected against the said reserved posts, then the claim of the petitioner would have ended. However, the respondent authorities did not do so, thereby deprived the petitioner of his chance of being selected for the said post. Such illegality on the part of the respondent authorities cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 10. So far as contention of the learned State counsel in respect of the Circular dated 18.06.1986 (Annexure R-1) is concerned, the said circular merely provides that a select list shall remain valid for one year from the date of its issuance. But the case in hand was not a case pertaining to the validity of the select list, as no select list containing name of the petitioner has been issued. Rather, in the present case, it is found that, despite being listed in Annexure R- 10 as an eligible candidate, the petitioner was never called for document verification, and thereby the respondent authorities committed illegality causing prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to allow the instant petition. 11. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to call the petitioner to consider his candidature for appointment on the post of Assistant Development Extension Officer (ADEO) pursuant to the advertisement dated 7 05.09.2017 (Annexure P-1). If, upon verification, the petitioner is found eligible, he be considered to be appointed against the said post. 12. It is further directed that aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 14. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar