1 2026:CGHC:11762 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2530 of 2024 1. Jyoti Soni W/o W/o Roshan Lal Swarnkar Aged About 39 Years R/o Block 5-A Street 8 Sector 1, Bhilai , Distt- Durg (CG) 2. Vivek Kumar Patel S/o Bhulau Ram Patel Aged About 41 Years R/o Kachhi Dafai, Chhota Bazar Chirmiri, Distt- Manendragarh-Chirmiri -Bharatpur (C.G.) 3. Ujjain Kumar S/o Rampratap Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Saskela,post-Salka, Tahsil- Bhaiyathan,distt- Surajpur (C.G.) 4. Trilok Singh S/o Kedar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Semariya, Post - Deorbija, Distt-Bemetara (C.G.) 5. Durgeshwari W/o W/o Amar Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Navgaon Khurd, Post- Daniya, Tahsil Devkar, Distt- Bemetara ,chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Education,mahanadi Bhawan,mantralaya Atal Nagar,new Raipur,distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan,new Raipur Distt- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Divisional Joint Director Divisional Joint Director Education Division Raipur,distt- Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vivek Verma, Govt. Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 11/03/2026 1. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking following reliefs:- “i. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners for appointment with all consequential benefit at the earliest, in the interest of justice. ii. Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners pursuant to advertisement dated 9.3.2019 applied for the post of Teacher. Petitioners were called for documents verification. After verification of documents, petitioners were issued letter stating that they would be called for further verification subject to availability of vacancies. Thereafter, when nothing has been heard by petitioners, even after long lapse of time, they submitted representation before the authority concerned for issuance of appointment/posting order. This representation could not fetch any result. Subsequently, petitioners came to know through a reply filed by respondent State authorities in a 3 matter regarding reservation, that certain posts advertised in the year 2019 could not be filled-up due to non-availability of eligible candidates and the same are still lying vacant. Hence, a direction be issued to respondents to consider candidature of petitioners, who were though called for verification of documents pursuant to advertisement dated 9.3.2019, but not considered for appointment in arbitrary manner, for appointment on the post of Teacher in their respective subject and category. In support of his submission, he places reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Tej Prakash Pathak & ors vs Rajasthan High Court & ors, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1. He further submits that posts of Teacher (Math) are still lying vacant and there was no provision for providing minimum cut-off marks in the examination, therefore, the selection committee on its own cannot make such provision. 3. Learned State Counsel opposing submissions of learned counsel for petitioners, would submit that after seventh round of counseling, all the posts of category to which petitioners belonged were filled-up. Present petitioners, who applied under OBC category for appointment on the post of Teacher (Maths) and Teacher (Biology), were not selected because they had secured less marks than last candidate who is appointed against last vacancy in the category of petitioners. 4 He further submits that validity of recruitment under advertisement, Annexure P-4, expired way back on 31.3.2023 and thereafter, the School Education Department has issued new advertisements for appointment of Teachers in Bastar and Surguja Divisions. To buttress his submission, he places reliance on the order of the Coordinate Bench dated 20.2.2025 passed in batch of writ petitions, lead case being WPS No.3474/2023 (Prem Lal Sahu vs. State of CG & ors). 4. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents available in record of writ petition. 5. Case of petitioners in this writ petition is that they had participated under OBC category in the recruitment process initiated pursuant to advertisement dated 9.3.2019 for appointment on the post of Teacher (Maths) and Teacher (Biology). Petitioners were called for document verification, but thereafter they were denied the appointment/posting without assigning any reason. However, after going through the reply filed on behalf of the State in another case, petitioners came to know that many posts of Teacher in all categories advertised vide advertisement dated 9.3.2019 could not be filled up. Therefore, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition seeking for a direction to respondent authorities to consider their case for appointment 5 against the post of Teacher which could not be filled-up pursuant to advertisement of the year 2019. 6. The law relating to the right of a candidate even if selected is no longer res integra and it is trite law that mere participation in the recruitment process or placement in a select list would not create an indefeasible right to be appointed, even if vacancies are available. 7. In case of Shankarsan Dash vs Union of India, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47, which has been followed in plethora of decisions by Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was observed thus:- “7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection, they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the license of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted.” 6 8. In case of State of Orissa vs Rajkishore Nanda, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777, it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that a candidate who merely participates in the recruitment process cannot claim appointment as a matter of right, more so after expiry of select list. Relevant portion of said decision is quoted herein below for ready refernce:- “14. A person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at best is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. The vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate. 16.A select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments, that vacancy can be filled up taking the names from that list as and when it is so required. It is the settled legal proposition that no relief can be granted to the candidate if he approaches the Court after expiry of the Select List. If the selection process is over, select list has expired and appointments had been made, no relief can be granted by the Court at a belated stage." 9. Recently, in case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), which is relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner herein, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:- “65.6. Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its 7 instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.” 10. From the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is apparent that by participation in selection or by selection, a candidate has no right to claim appointment. A candidate whose name is included or not included in the waiting list has no right to claim appointment, particularly after expiry of validity of select list. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. 11. In the present case, the petitioners, who were called for verification of documents in recruitment process initiated under advertisement dated 9.3.2019, remained as a silent spectator for all time. It was only when the petitioners came to know that in the reply filed in another case, respondent authorities have pleaded that certain posts of Teacher in all categories could not be filled up pursuant to advertisement of the year 2019, they woke up from their slumber and preferred this writ petition for a stale claim. 12. In the affidavit dated 15.1.2026 of the Joint Director, Education Division, Raipur filed in compliance of direction of this Court dated 8.1.2026, it is mentioned in categorical terms that after seventh round of counseling, the post of Teacher 8 (Math) and Teacher (Biology) in the category in which petitioners had applied under the advertisement of 2019 were filled-up and no posts were left vacant. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that validity of select list was extended from time to time, period expired on 31.3.2023. Thus, validity of select list has already expired on 31.3.2023. 13. Admittedly, the petitioners were called for verification of documents, but no order of appointment was issued in their favour. They approach the Court after the selection process is over, appointment had been made and the select list is expired, therefore, at this stage, no relief can be granted by this Court to them because they have no right to claim appointment after expiry of validity of select list. 14. As regards submission of learned counsel for petitioners that there was no provision of cut-off marks in the examination, therefore, application of “cut-off” after commencement of recruitment process amounts to changing rules of game, which is not permissible. 15. True it is that there is no mention of fixation of cut-off marks in the advertisement or governing rules. However, the expression “cut-off marks” in the context of a recruitment/selection process has a definite connotation. In absence of any provision or rule for fixation of cut-off marks/percentage in any recruitment process, the words ‘cut- 9 off marks/percentage’ only denote minimum marks obtained by the candidate who is selected against the last available vacancy. In other words, cut-off marks are nothing but the marks obtained by the candidate appointed against last available vacancy. 16. It is not in dispute that in the return submitted on behalf of respondents in present case, it is mentioned that as the petitioners have not secured the rank as per the cut-off marks, therefore, case of petitioners was not considered for appointment. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the purpose behind mentioning in return that, petitioners have not secured the rank as per the cut-off marks, therefore, they were not considered for appointment, is only to provide clarity and comparison between selected and non-selected candidates, that is to say, petitioners failed to secure more marks than the marks obtained by the candidate occupying last position in the category of petitioners. This apart, petitioners have not pleaded in writ petition as to what was the cut off marks fixed in the selection process, how they were determined and in what manner the same have been violated in case of petitioners. In absence of any such pleading, petitioners cannot derive any benefit of mentioning of ‘cut-off’ in the return filed on behalf of respondent State. 10 Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding cut-off marks is liable to be and is repelled. 17. For the foregoing discussions and reasons, in particular expiry of the period of recruitment proceeding on 31.3.2023 amongst others, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-