1 2026:CGHC:17423 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 469 of 2021  Hemant Kumar Belchandan S/o Late Shri Kedar Singh Belchandan Aged About 39 Years R/o Mig 536, Padnabhpur, Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, Dks Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commision Secretary Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Examinar Chhattisarh Public Service Commision Through Examiner Controller, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate For State : Mr. Anil Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 16.4.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- (10.1) It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the present selection, and the comparative results, for its kind perusal. 2 (10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside order dated 30.12.2020(Annexure P-1) and redrawn the entire merit list published by respondent authority on 30.12.2020(Annexure P- 2) selection list for the Assistant Veterinary Surgeon issued by respondent No. 3. (10.3) Any other relief / relief's which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition may also be pleased to be granted to the petitioner. 2) Facts of present case are that Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 19.2.2020 for recruitment to the post of Class-II Veterinary Assistant Surgeon under Animal and Husbandry Department to fill up 80 vacant and 82 back-log posts. Examination was to conducted in two stages – (1) written stage and (2) interview stage. However, sufficient number of application forms were not received, therefore CGPSC decided to conduct interview directly. Petitioner submitted the application form and participated in the recruitment process. Thereafter, merit list was published on 30.12.2020. 3) Mr. P. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent authorities failed to follow the method provided in the advertisement and rules, therefore the entire selection process including merit list is bad in law and deserves to quashed. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CGPSC submits that sufficient application forms were not received therefore decision was taken to 3 conduct interview directly as per Clause 10 of the advertisement as well as Rule 5.1 of the CGPSC Rules of Procedure, 2014. He further submits that petitioner participated in the recruitment process being fully conversant with the procedure adopted by the examination conducting body and only after being unsuccessful has preferred this petition challenging the method of recruitment, therefore this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) Mr. Anil Pandey, learned State counsel would support the contention made by Mr. Tiwari hereinabove. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7) From perusal of documents annexed along with this petition, it transpires that written examination was not conducted as sufficient application forms were not received and respondent No. 2 selected the candidates on the basis of marks obtained in interview but petitioner did not challenge the process adopted by the respondents during the course of recruitment and after completion of recruitment process and publication of merit list, he has preferred this petition. 8) It is trite law that a candidate taking a calculated chance by appearing in the examination after knowing fully well the procedural norms and eligibility qualification and only because the result of examination is not palatable to him, cannot turn around and subsequently, question the method of examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again in umpteen number of cases has laid 4 down the law in this regard. In the matter of Madal Lal Versus State of Jammu and Kashmir1 in similar fact situation, the Supreme Court has held that a candidate who consciously took part in the process of selection cannot turn around finding the decision unpalatable and question the method of selection. Relevant paragraph 9 read as under :- 9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being concerned respondents herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the concerned Members of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the concerned contesting respondents. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, that they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors., (AIR 1986 SC 1043), it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner. Aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in Madal Lal (supra) has been followed in the matters of Dhananjay Malik and Others Versus State of Uttaranchal and Others2 and Madras 1. (1995) 3 SCC 486 2. (2008) 4 SCC 171 5 Institute of Development Studies and Another Versus Dr. Sivasubramaniyam and Others. 3 9) In view of the discussion made herein above and the legal principles established the Apex Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a 3. AIR 2015 SC 3643 Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.04.16 17:27:49 +0530