1 CGHC010417922019 2026:CGHC:36619 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10410 of 2019 Prasanjeet Dewangan S/o Shri Santosh Dewangan Aged About 29 Years R/o Dewangan, Metal Store, Sadar Bazar, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2 - Chhattisgarh State Forest Development Corporation Through Managing Director, Office Campus, Block 7 (A), Sector 24, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 3 - Peetambar S/o Shri Pyare R/o Ward No. 12, Thekwa, Musra, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, 4 - Neernidhi Nandeha S/o Shri K. L. Nandeha R/o D-6 Prem Park, Mahavir Nagar, New Puraina, Ravigram, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Maunshri Sahu S/o Shri Domar Singh R/o 228, Bazar Chowk, Kaneri, District Balod Chhattisgarh, 6 - Rituraj S/o Shri Khorbahara R/o 134, Gandhi Chowk, Bodegaon, Nandkatthi, District Durg Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State For Respondent No.2 For Respondent No.3 : : : Mr. Sharad Mishra, P.L. Mr. Suyash Dhar, Advocate Dr. Sourabh Pande, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 17.08.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner to the post of Deputy Manager despite his being eligible, qualified and meritorious for the said post though the post is lying vacant. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is seeking appointment to the post of Deputy Manager in the Chhattisgarh State 2 Forest Development Corporation. It is submitted that the petitioner is an eligible and meritorious candidate and, therefore, is entitled to be considered for appointment against the vacant post. However, despite the petitioner being next in merit and fulfilling the requisite eligibility criteria, the respondents have arbitrarily denied him appointment. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and issue an appropriate appointment order in his favour against the vacant post of Deputy Manager. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has produced the relevant documents and submits it is evident from the merit list that Peetamber, belonging to the OBC category, secured 201 marks and has been granted appointment. Neernidhi Nandeha, belonging to the General category, secured 193 marks; Rituraj, belonging to the OBC category, secured 192 marks; and Maunshri Sahu, belonging to the OBC category, was also selected and appointed. The petitioner, belonging to the OBC category, secured 184 marks. Since only four posts were advertised, appointments have been made in favour of Peetamber, Neernidhi Nandeha, Rituraj and Maunshri Sahu. So far as the OBC category is concerned, only one post was advertised, against which Peetamber, having secured the highest marks, has already been granted appointment. Therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, this Court finds that only one post was reserved for the OBC category, against which Peetamber, having secured the highest marks, has already been granted appointment. The petitioner, having secured 184 marks, cannot claim appointment merely on the ground that he was also an eligible candidate. No illegality or arbitrariness in the selection process or appointment has been demonstrated. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. 5. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed on merits. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Jyoti