1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 30.03.2026 Order passed on : 06.04.2026 WPS No. 4207 of 2021 1 - Pravin Kumar Tiwari S/o Bhola Shankar Tiwari Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 258, Ward No. 02, Bandh Road, Mahalpara, Behind Raj Mahal, Saraipali, Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Wasim Akram S/o Bakar Ali Aged About 33 Years R/o Near Muslim Sarai, Beside Azhar Floor Mill, Kelabadi, Durg (Chhattisgarh) 491001, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Through Its Secretary, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Tomeshwar Singh Sahu Aged About 43 Years Through The Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 5 - Jagmohan Sahu Aged About 41 Years Through The Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Har Kumari Aged About 26 Years Through The Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate For State/Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. Advocate General For CGPSC/Resp. No. 2 and 3 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate (Division Bench) Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C.A.V. Order Per; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 1. The present petition has been filed challenging the legality and constitutional validity of Clause 1 of the Amendment Notification dated 19.03.2021 issued by the Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission (CGPSC), whereby a new Clause 17.6 was inserted in the Rules of Procedure, 2014. The petitioners contend that the said provision is ultra vires Article 320 of the Constitution of India, violative of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and infringes Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 3 The petitioners have further challenged the final selection list dated 14.07.2021 for the post of Assistant Professor (Botany), which has been prepared on the basis of the impugned amendment, alleging that it is contrary to applicable reservation rules, particularly in respect of the Physically Handicapped/Divyangjan quota. The petitioners have also questioned the selection of private respondents, contending that they were selected by improper application of reservation, resulting in the petitioners being wrongly placed in the waiting list. The petitioners have prayed for following reliefs :-- “i. To kindly hold and declare that the impugned Clause no.1 of the Amendment 111 Notification vide no.2268/Ped/2014/Su.Prau dated 19/03/2021 issued by the respondent Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission (in short CGPSC) amending the CGPSC Rules of Procedure and-2014 (in short ROP) is ultra vires to the Constitution of India. (Annexure P/1)/ ii. To kindly quash the impugned final selection list dated 14/07/2021 and direct the respondent CG Public Service Commission to re-issue the select list in accordance with law. (Annexure P/2)/ iii. To kindly direct the respondent CG Public Service Commission to cancel the selection of less meritorious respondents no.4 to 6 for the post of Assistant Professor-Botany and consider the petitioners for selection in 4 the unreserved category. iv. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioners are eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Botany, possessing the requisite educational qualifications. The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) issued Advertisement No. 02/2019 dated 18.01.2019 inviting applications for various posts of Assistant Professor, including 147 posts in Botany, wherein certain posts were reserved for Physically Handicapped/Divyangjan candidates. The advertisement was subsequently modified through multiple corrigenda altering, inter alia, the number of posts reserved for the Divyang category. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioners applied, were issued admit cards, and appeared in the written examination conducted in November 2020, followed by interviews for which they were called vide letter dated 24.06.2021. During the pendency of the selection process, CGPSC issued an amendment notification dated 19.03.2021 introducing Clause 17.6 in the Rules of Procedure, 2014, which governed the preparation of the final select list. The petitioners participated in the interview process and secured higher marks than certain private respondents (respondents No. 4 to 6). However, when the final 5 selection list dated 14.07.2021 was published, the petitioners were placed in the supplementary/waiting list, while respondents No. 4 to 6 were selected. The grievance of the petitioners is that the CGPSC, while preparing the final select list, applied the newly inserted Clause 17.6 in a manner that granted undue and excessive benefit to candidates belonging to the Physically Handicapped/Divyangjan category by treating them as unreserved candidates despite their lower merit. According to the petitioners, this resulted in distortion of merit and denial of rightful selection to more meritorious candidates like themselves. It is further the case of the petitioners that the impugned amendment to the Rules of Procedure lacks statutory backing, as it was not framed in accordance with the constitutional mandate under Article 320 of the Constitution of India, nor under any legislative enactment by the State. The petitioners contend that the Rules of Procedure are merely executive guidelines without statutory force, and therefore, the amendment introducing Clause 17.6 is ultra vires. It is also alleged that the application of the said clause violates the principles of horizontal reservation as well as Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, by effectively granting reservation beyond the permissible limit and allowing migration of reserved category candidates into the unreserved category without competing on merit. Accordingly, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment notification dated 19.03.2021 as well as the final selection list 6 dated 14.07.2021, contending that the same are arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, having resulted in denial of equal opportunity and fair consideration in public employment. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned Notification dated 19.03.2021 issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission is wholly illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of Article 320 of the Constitution of India as well as Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It is contended that the CGPSC, being a constitutional body, is bound to act strictly within the framework of the Constitution and statutory provisions, and cannot, by way of an executive notification or internal rules of procedure, alter or override the settled principles governing reservation. The impugned amendment introducing Clause 17.6 is thus without jurisdiction and liable to be struck down. It is further submitted that the CGPSC has no authority in law to prescribe or modify the manner of application of reservation through internal circulars or procedural rules, particularly when such modification runs contrary to the statutory scheme and constitutional mandate. The power to regulate reservation and recruitment policies vests either with the legislature or is to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of Article 320 through duly framed regulations. The Secretary of the CGPSC, who has issued the impugned notification, lacks legislative competence to introduce such 7 substantive changes affecting the rights of candidates, rendering the entire exercise void ab initio. Learned counsel next contends that Clause 17.6.1.6 of the amended Rules of Procedure, which permits migration of Physically Handicapped (Divyangjan) candidates to the Unreserved category merely on the basis of securing minimum qualifying marks, is contrary to the settled principles governing horizontal reservation. It is argued that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, migration from a reserved category to the unreserved category is permissible only when such candidate secures higher merit than the general category candidates, and not merely upon achieving minimum qualifying marks. The impugned provision, therefore, distorts the concept of merit and defeats the very purpose of fair competition. It is also urged that in the present case, respondents No. 4 to 6, who have admittedly secured lower marks than the petitioners, have been selected by treating them as unreserved candidates, thereby diluting merit and compromising the integrity of the selection process. Such action, according to the petitioners, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as it deprives more meritorious candidates of their rightful selection and undermines the guarantee of equal opportunity in public employment. Learned counsel further submits that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 does not contemplate or permit such migration of candidates from the PWD category to the unreserved category in disregard of merit. The Act only 8 provides for a fixed percentage of horizontal reservation, and any interpretation or application beyond the statutory limit amounts to excessive and impermissible reservation. In the present case, the respondents No. 4 to 6 have neither secured the requisite merit for selection under the unreserved category nor applied under such category, and therefore, their selection is wholly illegal. It is further contended that the respondents have failed to secure even the cut-off marks prescribed for their respective categories and have merely obtained the minimum qualifying marks, which cannot be equated with merit. The act of selecting such candidates against unreserved posts amounts to a clear case of discrimination and arbitrary exercise of power, resulting in serious prejudice to the petitioners. On these grounds, it is submitted that the entire selection list prepared on the basis of the impugned Rules of Procedure is vitiated in law and liable to be quashed. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned notification dated 19.03.2021 and the consequent final selection list dated 14.07.2021, and further direct the respondents to redraw the merit list strictly in accordance with law by excluding respondents No. 4 to 6, thereby ensuring that the petitioners are considered for appointment on the basis of their rightful merit. 4. Learned State counsel would submit that a bare perusal of the pleadings and averments made in the present writ petition would 9 clearly demonstrate that the principal relief sought by the petitioners is directed against the impugned Clause No. 1 of the III Amendment Notification dated 19.03.2021, as well as the final selection list dated 14.07.2021, both of which have been issued by the respondent Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC). The petitioners have further sought a direction for re- issuance of the select list and cancellation of the selection of certain candidates. Thus, the entire grievance of the petitioners pertains to the actions undertaken by the CGPSC in relation to amendment of the Rules of Procedure, conduct of selection, and preparation of the merit list. It is further submitted that the CGPSC is the competent authority which has undertaken the entire process of recruitment, including carrying out the amendment in the Rules of Procedure, conducting the interviews, and issuing the final selection list. Therefore, the CGPSC is the principal and necessary contesting party to the present proceedings, and it is for the said Commission to justify and respond to the allegations raised by the petitioners. It is submitted that the Chhattisgarh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch, Gazette) Recruitment Rules, 2019 have been framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The said Rules clearly delineate the framework governing recruitment, eligibility, and selection of candidates. A conjoint reading of Rules 9 to 12 of the said Rules makes it abundantly clear that the decision of the 10 Commission with regard to the eligibility of candidates is final, and the manner of selection, including preparation of merit list and recommendation of candidates, is to be determined by the Commission itself. It is further submitted that Rule 11 specifically empowers the Commission to conduct the selection process and determine the manner in which candidates are to be selected, while Rule 10 categorically provides that the decision of the Commission regarding eligibility shall be final. Rule 12 further authorizes the Commission to prepare and forward the list of selected candidates in order of merit. Therefore, the statutory scheme itself vests wide discretion and authority in the Commission in matters relating to selection and preparation of merit list. In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions, it is respectfully submitted that the impugned amendment has been carried out by the CGPSC strictly within the framework of the Rules and the powers conferred upon it. The role of the State Government is limited to framing the Recruitment Rules, whereas the actual conduct of the selection process and implementation thereof lies within the exclusive domain of the Commission. It is, therefore, submitted that no substantial or effective relief has been claimed against the answering respondent/State Government. The allegations made in the writ petition are primarily directed against the actions of the CGPSC, and the State has no direct role in the impugned selection process or the issuance of the select list. 11 5. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3, i.e., the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”), that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the final selection list for the post of Assistant Professor (Botany) issued by the Commission primarily on the grounds that Clause No. 1 of the III Amendment Notification dated 19.03.2021 amending Clause 17.6 of the Rules of Procedure, 2014 is ultra vires to Article 320 of the Constitution of India, violative of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and infringes Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioners have also alleged improper application of reservation in favour of physically handicapped candidates and have sought quashing of the final selection list along with cancellation of selection of private respondents. At the outset, it is submitted that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have deliberately failed to implead all the necessary and affected parties, particularly those candidates whose names appear in the final selection list and against whom adverse relief has been sought. The petition, therefore, suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold on this ground alone. It is further submitted that the petitioners had full knowledge of the terms and conditions governing the recruitment process, including the Chhattisgarh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 2019 and the Rules of Procedure, 2014 along with amendments dated 12 08.03.2017 and 19.03.2021. Despite such knowledge, the petitioners participated in the entire selection process without any demur and only after finding themselves placed in the waiting list have chosen to challenge the process. Such a challenge at a belated stage is hit by the principles of estoppel, acquiescence, and delay and laches, and is therefore not maintainable. It is respectfully submitted that the recruitment process in question was conducted strictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, 2019 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and the advertisement dated 23.01.2019 clearly stipulated that the selection would be governed by the said Rules. The Commission, being a constitutional body, is duty bound to conduct the selection process in accordance with the requisition received from the State Government and the applicable statutory framework. It is further submitted that the Rules of Procedure, 2014 have been validly framed by the Commission and derive their authority from the applicable legal framework, including the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. The said Rules have replaced earlier procedural norms and provide a complete mechanism for conduct of examinations and selection of candidates. The amendments carried out therein from time to time, including the amendment dated 19.03.2021, are within the competence of the Commission and cannot be said to be ultra vires as alleged by the petitioners. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the primary contention of the petitioners that the 13 impugned selection list has been prepared on the basis of the amendment dated 19.03.2021 is factually incorrect. The final selection list dated 14.07.2021 has, in fact, been prepared in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Clause 17.6 as amended on 08.03.2017, which specifically provides the mechanism for identification and adjustment of physically handicapped candidates in the selection process. Hence, the challenge to the subsequent amendment dated 19.03.2021 is misconceived, baseless, and liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that the allegation of excessive reservation in favour of physically handicapped candidates is wholly misconceived. The Commission has strictly adhered to the provisions of the Recruitment Rules, 2019, the Chhattisgarh Reservation Act, 1994, and the applicable provisions relating to horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities. The identification and selection of candidates have been carried out strictly on the basis of merit as reflected in the consolidated merit list and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. It is submitted that candidates belonging to reserved categories, including physically handicapped candidates, who secured marks equal to or above the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for the unreserved category, have rightly been considered under the open category in terms of the applicable rules. The private respondents have secured their respective positions in the merit list based on their performance and in accordance with the Rules, and their selection cannot be termed 14 as illegal or arbitrary. It is further submitted that the petitioners themselves have secured lesser marks as compared to other candidates in the open category and, therefore, have rightly been placed in the waiting list. The detailed merit position clearly demonstrates that the private respondents have secured positions strictly on merit and in accordance with the applicable rules, and no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Commission in preparing the final selection list. In view of the aforesaid facts and submissions, it is submitted that the Commission has acted strictly in accordance with law, applicable rules, and constitutional provisions while conducting the selection process and issuing the impugned selection list. The grounds raised by the petitioners are based on incorrect assumptions, misinterpretation of law, and are devoid of any merit. It is, therefore, prayed that the present writ petition, being misconceived, devoid of merits, suffering from delay and laches as well as non-joinder of necessary parties, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold with costs. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 7. The present writ petition calls in question the constitutional validity of Clause 1 of the Amendment Notification dated 19.03.2021, whereby Clause 17.6 was inserted in the Rules of Procedure, 2014, and also assails the final selection list dated 14.07.2021 for 15 the post of Assistant Professor (Botany), primarily on the ground of improper application of horizontal reservation in favour of Physically Handicapped/Divyangjan candidates. At the outset, this Court finds that an identical challenge to the very same amendment notification dated 19.03.2021 and the methodology adopted by the Commission in applying horizontal reservation fell for consideration before this Court in a batch of writ petitions, wherein, after elaborate consideration of the constitutional scheme, statutory provisions and binding precedents, the validity of Clause 17.6 and the selection process undertaken by the Commission was upheld. The principles laid down therein squarely govern the present controversy. 8. The principal contention of the petitioners is that Clause 17.6 permits migration of Physically Handicapped candidates to the unreserved category merely on securing minimum qualifying marks, thereby diluting merit and violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This argument, however, proceeds on a fundamental misapprehension of the nature and operation of horizontal reservation. As already held by this Court in the earlier batch, horizontal reservation operates across vertical categories and requires interlocking adjustment. The identification of candidates belonging to horizontal categories, including persons with disabilities, is to be carried out on the basis of merit, followed by necessary adjustments in the respective vertical categories. 16 The mere fact that a candidate belonging to a reserved or sub- category is accommodated in the unreserved category does not render the process illegal, so long as the overall reservation matrix is maintained and the selection is based on merit within the applicable framework. 9. In the present case, the material placed on record clearly indicates that the Commission has prepared a consolidated merit list and thereafter undertaken identification in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The private respondents, though belonging to the Physically Handicapped category, were considered in accordance with the applicable rules, having secured the requisite qualifying marks. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that any candidate lower in merit within the same adjusted category has been selected in preference to them in violation of the governing rules. The submission that migration to the unreserved category is permissible only upon securing marks higher than general category candidates, and not merely upon obtaining minimum qualifying marks, cannot be accepted in the abstract. The applicable Rules of Procedure, read with the Recruitment Rules, 2019, clearly provide the mechanism for identification and adjustment of candidates, and the Commission has acted within the bounds of such framework. As held in the earlier decision, procedural provisions regulating the manner of implementation of reservation do not amount to altering the substantive reservation 17 policy. The challenge to the vires of the amendment dated 19.03.2021 is also liable to be rejected. 10. This Court has already upheld the constitutional validity of Clause 17.6, holding that the same is procedural in nature and does not contravene Articles 309 or 320 of the Constitution, nor does it violate Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. No distinguishing feature has been pointed out in the present case warranting a departure from the said view. That apart, the stand of the respondent Commission that the selection in question has substantially been governed by the earlier amendment dated 08.03.2017 further weakens the challenge to the amendment dated 19.03.2021. 11. Even otherwise, the petitioners, having participated in the entire selection process with full knowledge of the applicable rules, cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the same after being placed in the waiting list. The petition is thus also hit by the principles of acquiescence and estoppel. The objection regarding non-joinder of necessary parties is also of substance. The petitioners seek cancellation of the selection of specific candidates without impleading all affected persons. Any adverse order in their absence would be in violation of principles of natural justice. On this ground as well, the petition suffers from a serious infirmity. 12. The plea of delay and laches also cannot be ignored. The 18 petitioners approached this Court after declaration of the final result, despite being fully aware of the procedure governing the selection. Such belated challenge to a concluded selection process is impermissible, particularly in the absence of any patent illegality. On merits, this Court finds that the grievance of the petitioners essentially rests upon a comparative assertion that they have secured higher marks than certain selected candidates. However, as repeatedly held, selection in matters involving horizontal reservation cannot be tested solely on a simplistic comparison of marks across categories without appreciating the interlocking mechanism. The petitioners have failed to establish any breach of the reservation framework or any arbitrariness in the selection process. 13. Judicial review in matters of public recruitment is limited. Unless the action of the recruiting authority is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of statutory provisions, this Court would not interfere. In the present case, no such infirmity has been demonstrated. In view of the aforesaid analysis, and in the light of the earlier decision of this Court upholding the very same amendment and selection methodology, this Court is of the considered opinion that the challenge raised by the petitioners is devoid of merit. 14. Consequently, it is held that the Amendment Notification dated 19.03.2021 inserting Clause 17.6 in the Rules of Procedure, 2014 19 is constitutionally valid; The final selection list dated 14.07.2021 for the post of Assistant Professor (Botany) has been prepared in accordance with law and the selection of private respondents does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Shayna The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 30.03.2026 06.04.2026 06.04.2026 06.04.2026