Candidates do not have an indefeasible right to appointment based solely on being shortlisted; participation without objection limits the ability to challenge subsequent decisions.

ORDER :

(Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.)

1. Since an identical issue and common question of facts are involved in both the writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition with a prayer that respondent No.2 be kindly directed to prepare a fresh list for skill test according to the reservation roster and as per law. The petitioners be also directed to provide opportunity for skill test in the aforesaid recruitment examination.

3. The brief facts, as reflected from the records are that;

A) The respondent No. 2 published an advertisement for appointment of Stenographer, Steno Typist, and Assistant Grade III on 28.06.2023 and called applications in this respect from the candidates. As per the advertisement the last date for submission of application form was 13.07.2023. The petitioners participated in the aforesaid proceeding and preliminary Exam was held on 22.10.2023. The respondent No. 2 prepared a separate list of candidates for skill test of Un-reserved, OBC, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. It is also the case of the petitioners that list for Unreserved candidates highest marks secured by the candidates is 45 and lowest is 29 whereas in OBC category highest marks is 46 and lowest is 39.

B) The petitioners have scored more than 29 marks which is higher than the lowest marks of the Unreserved Category still they were not called for skill test by applying wrong reservation roster, consequently the lower scored candidates were called for skill test. It has been further contended that in other district court recruitment drive the appointing authority has prepared the list of candidates as per reservation roster and persons of OBC category who have secured higher marks than unreserved candidates were called for skill test, as such a discriminative and illegal procedure has been adopted by respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that the petitioners raised objection before the authority but respondent No.02 has not redressed the grievance of petitioners in this regard. On the above factual foundations the petitioners have prayed for issuance of direction for preparation of list of candidates as per reservation rules.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the petitioners are eligible to be called for skill test but due to adoption of wrong reservation roster by the respondent No.2 petitioners are being deprived from skill test. He would further submit that the respondent authority has not applied its mind while preparing the list of candidates for skill test which is nothing but discrimination and arbitrariness. He would further submit that as per notice dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure P/4) and covering memo dated 10.09.2024, same exam has been conducted at Mungeli and Surguja District wherein the reservation rule has been followed in its letter and spirit. He would further submit that the Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Janjatiyon avam Anya Pichhade Vargon ka Arakshan Adhiniyam, 1994 (in short ‘the Rules of 1994’) as per amendment made on 19.05.1995 and as per the notification issued by the State of Chhattisgarh on 11.02.2008 provides that any reserved candidates selected in unreserved category on their own merits does not count as a reserved candidate. To substantiate his submission he would refer to the judgment of constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India & Ors. {1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217} wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in India vertical reservation system was followed in all recruitment process. In this system, if any candidate obtains higher marks then they vertically migrate to the unreserved category and should be appointed against unreserved post. He would further rely upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & another Vs. Sandeep Choudhary & others {2022 Livelaw (SC) 419}, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that rule of reservation is a