1 CGHC010291722022 2026:CGHC:36483 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5885 of 2022 1 - Pallavi Choure D/o Shri Sunderlal Choure Aged About 36 Years R/o Mig - 1/26, Phase 1, Kabir Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Gautam Kumar Through The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, North Block, Sector - 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Harshmandar Rastogi, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate For State : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.08.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “10.1 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders to respondent authorities to provide the seat to the petitioner in the post of Dental Surgeon as per the merit list cum reservation policy as specified in the Advertisement. 2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of -2- the case.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that an advertisement was issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission on 09.02.2022 to fill up 44 posts of Dental Surgeon. There were 4 backlog posts, and 40 vacancies were divided as under: SI.No. Name of Post Total Post as per the Category Post reserved for Women (CG) as per the category Reserved post for PH candidates out of total post Total UR SC ST OBC UR SC ST OBC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2. Dental Surgeon Doctor 17 5 13 5 5 1 3 1 03(OA), OL) 44 Backlog 2 - 1 1 - - - - 04 (OA, OL) UR-2. ST-1, OBC- 1 Total 19 5 14 6 5 1 3 1 44 Three posts were reserved for physically handicapped (PH) candidates, but posts were not earmarked for particular category. The petitioner, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste category, participated in the recruitment process and subsequently, the result was declared. The petitioner secured 171.3211 marks and was placed at serial No.51 in the merit list and at serial No.12 in the wait list of Scheduled Caste category. Four candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste category were offered appointment. At the same time, a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste category under the PH category was also offered appointment, having secured 97.7265 marks. 3. Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that there were five posts reserved for the Scheduled Caste category and three posts were separately reserved for the PH 3 category. He would submit that the respondent authorities ought to have appointed PH candidates against the posts reserved for said category, and the posts reserved for the Scheduled Caste category ought to have been filled up by candidates belonging to said category only. He would further submit that one candidate belonging to SC_PH category was appointed against five vacancies of Dental Surgeon, whereas name of the petitioner should have been considered for 5th post as petitioner has secured 5th position in the merit list of the Scheduled Caste category. He would contend that the respondents may be directed to redraw the merit list and consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that though three posts reserved for PH candidates were not bifurcated category-wise but the respondent authorities offered appointment to one PH candidate belonging to unreserved category; one PH candidate belonging to the Other Backward Class category and one PH candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. They would further submit that the number of vacancies cannot be increased by the respondent authorities and, in the recruitment process, three PH candidates have been adjusted against the available 40 vacancies. They would contend that the claim of the petitioner is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. -4- 6. The advertisement would show that there was bifurcation of the vacancy for the post of reserved for PH category in backlog. Out of four posts, two were kept for unreserved category, one post for Scheduled Tribe and one post for OBC but in absence of candidates, those vacancies were carried forward. With regard to three vacancies kept for PH category, there was no bifurcation and the respondent authorities alloted three posts to candidates belonging to UR, OBC and SC. The petitioner has claimed his right against a post which has already been allotted to SC_PH category. It is true that the respondent authorities failed to earmark three vacancies while issuing advertisement. 7. The advertisement was issued in the month of February, 2022, and there were only five posts reserved for the Scheduled Caste category. Though the name of the petitioner finds place in the merit list of the Scheduled Caste category at serial No.51, the first candidate belonging to the SC category is placed at serial No.24, the second candidate at serial No.30, the third candidate at serial No.40, and the fourth candidate at serial No.47. The name of the petitioner appears at serial No.51, and as one post has been allotted to the PH category, his name could not be considered. The name of the petitioner appears at serial No.12 in the common wait list. 8. The candidate belonging to the PH category was appointed in the year 2022, and almost four years have passed since then. The respondent authorities considered the name of the candidate from SC_PH category. Though three posts reserved for the PH category 5 were not notified category-wise, but considering the fact that appointment was made in the year 2022 and the name of the petitioner appears in the wait list, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the appointment order issued in favour of PH category candidate. Thus, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha