Unsuccessful Candidates Cannot Challenge Recruitment Process After Participating: Chhattisgarh High Court

Unsuccessful Candidates Cannot Challenge Selection Process After Participating: Chhattisgarh HC

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, has delivered a significant verdict reinforcing the principle of "estoppel by conduct" in public employment. The court ruled that candidates who participate in a recruitment process with full knowledge of the rules cannot turn around to challenge the selection method after being declared unsuccessful.

Case Background

The dispute arose following an advertisement by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) in 2019 for the recruitment of 1,384 Assistant Professors. The appellant, a visually impaired candidate, challenged the recruitment process, arguing that the failure to reserve 2% of the posts for visually impaired (VH) candidates in the Commerce faculty violated Article 16(1) of the Constitution and provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The appellant argued that previous recruitments had provided such reservations, making the current omission arbitrary.

Arguments Presented

The Appellant's Stance: The appellant, appearing in person, contended that the absence of reservation for visually impaired candidates in the Commerce faculty was illegal and discriminatory. He sought a direction to the CGPSC to issue a corrigendum providing the requested 2% reservation for both current and backlog vacancies.

The Respondent's Stance: The CGPSC and the State government maintained that the identification of posts for reservation is the sole prerogative of the appointing authority. They submitted that a 100-point roster was followed as per policy, and reservation was provided for other categories of disability (OA and OL) based on the nature of the duties required for teaching Commerce. Furthermore, the respondents argued that the appellant lacked locus standi to challenge the process after voluntarily participating and failing to secure a position.

Legal Analysis and Precedents

The Court relied heavily on established legal principles regarding the sanctity of the selection process. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir , the Bench observed that candidates who take a "calculated chance" in an examination cannot claim the process was unfair only after receiving unfavorable results. This principle was further bolstered by references to Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal and Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi , which confirmed that courts should be reluctant to interfere with academic and recruitment matters formulated by experts.

Additionally, the Court noted that under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 , the government has the discretion to interchange posts among disability categories based on the nature of the work—a power the State exercised reasonably in this instance.

Key Observations

• On Judicial Interference: "The Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise."
• On Candidate Conduct: "A candidate taking a calculated chance by appearing in the examination after knowing fully well the procedural norms... could not turn around and subsequently, question the method of selection."
• On Employer Prerogative: "The appointing authority being best judge to assess suitability of the candidates for its establishment... the Court normally should not direct employer to choose particular employee for particular assignment."

Final Decision

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the decision of the Single Judge. The Court held that the recruitment process was conducted in accordance with the established rules and that the petitioner, having participated without protest, could not challenge the selection list once he was found unsuccessful. The judgment effectively limits the ability of candidates to contest recruitment criteria after the fact, reinforcing the finality of public selection processes.