1 / 2026:CGHC:12040 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 14031 of 2025 1 - Roshan Kumar S/o Kanta Prashad Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Kopli, P.S. Machandur (Utai) Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Prashant Pandey S/o Mukesh Kumar Pandey Aged About 23 Years R/o Jr Hig - 02, New Housing Board Colony Deori Khurd, P.S. Torwa District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Ravi Chandrakar S/o Vishnu Chandrakar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village And Post Farfoud P.S. Arang District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Nitesh Kumar S/o Bimlu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Gujra Post Riwa Tehsil And P.S. Mandir Hasaud District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Jay Kumar Kurrey S/o Hemlal Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Gudguda, Post Gullu P.S. Arang District- Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Dipesh Kumar Rathod S/o Ujjain Rathod Aged About 23 Years R/o 201, Vamjanki Mandir Darri Para Khoksa P.S. Naila District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 7 - Vinay S/o Rameshwar Aged About 24 Years R/o Village And Post Hardi Kala Tona, P.S. Sirgitti , District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 8 - Yuraj Bharti S/o Dayaram Bharti Aged About 23 Years R/o Village And Post Khopli, P.S. Machandur (Utai) Tahsil Durg District- Durg (C.G.) 9 - Sheikh Rajak S/o Shekh Sukur Aged About 26 Years R/o Adarsh Nagar, Deoripur P.S. Torwa Thana District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 10 - Sukhdev S/o Sahurik Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Junwani Post Malhar, Tehsil And P.S. Masturi District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 2 / 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh Police Headquarters Sector- 19, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police Recruitment Unit Police Head Quarters Naya Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through Chairperson, Vyapam Bhavan, North Block Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Vyapam Bhavan, North Block Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 to 3- State : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Additional A.G. with Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 4 & 5 : Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate S.B.: HON'BLE SHRI PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, JUDGE ORDER ON BOARD 13/03/2026 1. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing and set aside select list dated 09.12.2025 (ANNEXURE P/8(colly)) in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to issue fresh select list after removing the irregularity and illegality pointed out by the petitioner in the present writ petition in accordance with law. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to have petitioner and other candidates to 3 / choose one of the districts where the concerned candidate has obtained highest marks in the physical efficiency test. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to publish the result of physical efficiency test of candidates district wise in order to ensuring transparency in the recruitment process. 10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to publish the details of bonus marks granted to the candidate for being candidates of family of ex-servicemen or for being certificate holder of NCC and NSS. 10.6 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other appropriate order/direction considering the facts and circumstances of the writ, in the interest of justice.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Police Department has issued an advertisement calling for online applications from 01.01.2024 for appointment to the posts of Constable (GD), Driver and other different trades according to the vacancies available in the districts as mentioned in the advertisement. According to the petitioner, total number of posts advertised by the department was about 5967. As there is no restriction in the advertisement on the submission of an application by one candidate/applicant for more than one district, many of the applicants/aspirants have submitted applications from more than one district. Recruitment is to be made at the district level, as the post advertised is that of Constable. He contended that if a candidate A has submitted an application form from four districts and if he becomes successful in all four districts, he has been shown as a selected candidate in all four districts. However, a person/aspirant can join only 4 / at one place and, therefore, the posts in the other three districts will remain vacant. According to the instructions of the petitioner, the candidates who are shown to be selected will occupy roughly about 2500 posts; however, the respondent department has intimated that all the posts advertised have been exhausted, which is not correct. He also pointed out that, according to the instructions gathered, five candidates who have been shown selected in the OBC category have also been shown selected in the General category, and if the OBC candidates have been selected in the General category, the same is also erroneous. 3. 3. Counsel for the respondents would submit that, according to the instructions in the reply filed, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that many candidates have been shown to be selected in more than one district is not in dispute. He submits that, as there is no bar in the advertisement on submitting an application by one aspirant/candidate from more than one district, the applications have been accepted and, according to the merit list, the select list has been prepared for each district. He submits that, as of now, the select list has been published showing the names of 5948 candidates/applicants. He submits that there may be candidates in the select list who have been selected from more than one district; however, the posts which remain vacant can only be identified after the issuance of the orders of appointment and their joining. He submits that, in such circumstances, the posts which are not filled from the select list will be considered vacant posts, and appropriate steps would be taken for giving appointments from the wait list candidates according to their category and the post for which the wait list candidate has applied. He also 5 / submits that a similar procedure will be adopted for the OBC candidates who have been shown in the wait list both as OBC category candidates as well as General category candidates. He submits that ultimately, the posts on which the candidates/aspirants do not join will be declared vacant, and the procedure will be adopted for filling the said posts from the wait list candidates. In support of his contention, he referred to Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the reply. 4. Heard counsel for the parties. 5. The main grievance of the petitioner, which he has raised, is with regard to the number of posts advertised. As 5967 posts are to be filled, according to the instructions, only 2500 would be filled from select list as many candidates have submitted application from more than one district, and the respondents have not initiated any proceedings for filling up the remaining posts. 6. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, in particular the counsel for the State, in the facts of the case where there was no bar on submitting an application from more than one district, the candidates have submitted applications and, according to their merit, they have been shown to be selected candidates in those districts from which they have submitted their forms. 7. It is also the submission of counsel for the State that after the joining of a particular candidate in one place/district, the posts in which that candidate has been shown to be selected will become vacant, and the appropriate procedure will be adopted for filling up the posts from the wait list candidates. 6 / 8. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the specific stand taken by the State, and further from the submissions of the counsel for the parties, it is apparent that all the posts advertised will not be filled from the select list as published by the State Government. Accordingly, the writ petition, at this stage, is disposed of, directing the State Government to initiate proceedings for filling up the remaining vacant posts after giving appointment to the selected candidates, after their joining, and thereafter fill up the vacant posts from the wait list candidates as per their category, in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Saurabh