Candidate Who Participated In Selection Process Cannot Challenge It After Failing: Chhattisgarh High Court - 2025-09-17

Chhattisgarh HC: Candidate Cannot Challenge Recruitment Process After Participating and Failing

The court upheld the state's discretion in identifying posts for disability reservation, dismissing a plea by a visually impaired candidate who was unsuccessful in the selection for Assistant Professor (Commerce).

BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH – The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a significant ruling on service law, has held that a candidate who willingly participates in a recruitment process cannot turn around and challenge its validity after being unsuccessful. A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed a writ appeal filed by Saroj Kshemanidhi, a visually impaired candidate, who sought reservation for his disability category in the recruitment for Assistant Professor in Commerce.

The court affirmed the decision of a single judge, reinforcing the principle that identifying posts for specific disability categories is the prerogative of the government and that courts have limited scope to interfere in such policy matters.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an advertisement issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) in 2019 for 1384 posts of Assistant Professor, which included 184 vacancies in the Commerce subject. Saroj Kshemanidhi, the appellant, applied for the post, cleared the written examination, and appeared for the interview. However, he was not selected in the final list.

He subsequently filed a writ petition challenging the CGPSC's failure to provide a 2% reservation for blind and low-vision candidates in the Commerce faculty, arguing it was a violation of his fundamental rights. His petition was dismissed by a single judge, leading to the present writ appeal.

Arguments from Both Sides

Appellant's Contentions: Mr. Saroj Kshemanidhi, arguing in person, contended that the state's failure to provide reservation for visually handicapped (VH) persons in the Commerce subject was arbitrary and illegal. He pointed out that a previous advertisement in 2014 for the same post had included such a reservation, and the current omission was discriminatory. He argued that this action violated Article 16(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.

Respondents' Defence: The counsel for the CGPSC and the State of Chhattisgarh countered that the identification of posts for reserved categories is a policy decision and the prerogative of the employer (the State Government). They argued that the recruitment process followed the 100-point roster and the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The state submitted that posts for Assistant Professor in Arts subjects were identified as suitable for visually impaired candidates, whereas Commerce, Science, and Computer Application subjects were not, due to the nature of the duties involved.

Furthermore, the respondents strongly argued that the appellant, having participated in the examination without protest, was estopped from challenging the process after the results were not in his favour. They also claimed he had no locus standi, as he was espousing a public cause rather than claiming a personal right after failing the selection.

Court's Legal Analysis and Precedents

The Division Bench extensively analyzed Sections 33 and 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, noting that the "appropriate Government" is empowered to identify posts suitable for different disability categories. The court observed that the state had exercised this power and provided reservation for other disability categories—One Arm (OA) and One Leg (OL)—in the Commerce faculty. The proviso to Section 34 of the Act allows for such interchangeability between disability categories.

The court heavily relied on the settled legal principle of estoppel in service matters, citing the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1995) . The bench quoted the judgment, stating:

"...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..."

The court also referenced Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth (1984) , emphasizing that courts should be reluctant to substitute their own views in academic and policy matters best left to experts.

Final Judgment

In its concluding remarks, the High Court held that the appellant could not be allowed to question the selection process after having consciously participated in it. The bench found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the single judge's order.

The judgment stated:

"Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the fact that after being unsuccessful in the selection process, the petitioner challenged the reservation roster... we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court."

The writ appeal was consequently dismissed as being devoid of merit.