1 2026:CGHC:8706 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4728 of 2023 Chanchala Rani Patel W/o Mahendra Kumar Patel Aged About 36 Years R/o Village & Post Jaimura, Thana Kharsia, Tahsil Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Through The Registrar, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Krishak Nagar, Lobhandi, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 18.02.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for records of the case from the respondent. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.19 18:51:27 +0530 2 earmarked the number of posts as per 30% reservation for women and extend the cutoff date by issuing fresh advertisement. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent for permitting the petitioner to participate in selection process of Assistant Professor (Agronomy) in reserved category of women. 10.4 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent issued an advertisement dated 14.11.2019 inviting online applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. By the said advertisement, a total of 66 posts were notified, comprising 21 posts for Unreserved category, 07 for EWS, 21 for Scheduled Tribe, 08 for Scheduled Caste and 09 for Other Backward Classes. The essential qualifications prescribed in the advertisement were Master’s Degree in the relevant subject with at least 55% marks, qualification of National Eligibility Test (NET) or possession of Ph.D. degree, along with two full-length publications having NAAS rating not less than 5. The last date for submission of online applications was fixed as 31.12.2019. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the advertisement did not specifically earmark posts for women reservation, though 30% reservation for women in direct recruitment is mandated under the 3 Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997. The petitioner, being a woman candidate, submits that non-disclosure of earmarked posts for women reservation in the advertisement is contrary to statutory rules and principles of transparency and fairness in public employment. 4. The petitioner states that she possesses all requisite qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor (Agronomy). Though she completed her Ph.D. degree in the academic year 2022–23 and was awarded the degree on 18.01.2023, she could not apply pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.11.2019 as she did not fulfill the eligibility criteria on the last date i.e., 31.12.2019. It is further submitted that the petitioner is presently working as Farm Manager at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Bilaspur under the respondent institution and is otherwise competent and experienced for the said post. 5. It is further averred that after issuance of the advertisement, no substantial progress was made in the selection process for a period of nearly three years. However, all of a sudden, the respondent issued a notice dated 28.06.2023 scheduling interviews for the post of Assistant Professor. According to the petitioner, such inordinate delay has resulted in denial of opportunity to fresh and now eligible candidates like her, who acquired requisite qualifications during the intervening period, while also creating uncertainty in public employment. 4 6. The petitioner further contends that the respondent institution is recognized and affiliated with ICAR, UGC and CSIR, and is bound by the norms and instructions issued by the Government of India. Reliance is placed on Office Memorandum dated 11.01.2016, whereby Ministries and Departments were directed to complete recruitment processes within a stipulated time frame. 7. It is also stated that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.06.2023 requesting the respondent to extend the cut-off date so as to enable her participation in the selection process and also sought disclosure of the number of posts earmarked under 30% women reservation. However, despite such representation, the respondent neither clarified nor rectified the advertisement, nor took steps to earmark posts reserved for women. 8. According to the petitioner, the continued inaction and failure of the respondent to earmark posts for women reservation and to complete the recruitment process within a reasonable period is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the statutory provisions as well as Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Being aggrieved by such action and inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the entire selection process, initiated pursuant to the said advertisement, has already been concluded and eligible candidates have been duly 5 selected and appointed. It is contended that appointments have been made, including in the Department of Agronomy, and the posts have already been filled up. In such circumstances, it is submitted that no subsisting cause of action survives in favour of the petitioner in the present proceedings and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only upon filing of the return by the respondents on 16.12.2025 did the petitioner come to know that the selection process had been finalized and that appointment orders had been issued, including order dated 28.08.2023 whereby the process stood concluded and the posts in question were filled up. It is submitted that prior to disclosure of the said facts in the return, the petitioner was not aware of the completion of the selection process and, therefore, had no occasion or cause of action to specifically challenge the appointment order dated 28.08.2023. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that liberty be granted to the petitioner to assail the said appointment order, if so advised, in accordance with law. 11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with the writ petition. 12. Upon perusal of the main relief clause in the petition, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner was premised on the assertion that she was entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Agronomy) under the category reserved for 6 women. The petitioner has contended that she was desirous and willing to participate in the selection process and that proper reservation for women ought to have been implemented. However, it is an admitted position on record that the petitioner did not, in fact, participate in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.11.2019. 13. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that since the selection process has already been completed and appointments have been made, no effective relief can be granted in the present writ petition, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner did not participate in the selection process. However, insofar as the petitioner contends that she was unaware of completion of the process until filing of the return and seeks to challenge the appointment order dated 28.08.2023, it would be appropriate to reserve liberty in her favour. 14. Accordingly, it is observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the appointment order dated 28.08.2023 and consequential actions, if she is so aggrieved, by filing an appropriate petition in accordance with law. It is further observed that since the return disclosing completion of the selection process was filed on 16.12.2025, the petitioner may take recourse to appropriate legal remedies as permissible in law. 7 15. With the aforesaid liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner, the present writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh