2025:CGHC:59907-DB NAFR Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI SHARMA SHARMADate:

2025.12.11 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

11:00:46 +0530 WA No. 908 of 2025 Yogesh Kumar S/o Surajlal Aged About 21 Years R/o Village And Post Puri Tahshil Charama District Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s)

versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Minister Of Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Superintendent Of Police District Kanker Chhattisgarh

3. The Director Of Police Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

4. Kishore Kumar S/o Deendayal Aged About 33 Years C/o The Superintendent Of Police District Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Tikashwar Prasad Kaushik, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Sagar Soni, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge

10.12.2025

1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 7031 of 2019 by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioner.

2. The present writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Division Bench be pleased to allow the writ appeal and set aside the order dated 05-08-2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Learned Single Judge in WPS No.7031/2019 and further please to direct the respondent 1 to 3 for appointing the petitioner in the post of Constable (GD) in OBC category, in the interest of justice.”

3. Facts of the case in nutshell is that respondent authorities published advertisement dated 04.06.2016 for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in various Districts of Bastar Division, in which District Kanker was also involved, wherein total 104 posts of Constable (GD) was to be recruited. Out of which 11 posts were reserved for OBC Category (non creamy layer). The appellant also participated in the OBC category in the said recruitment process, in which various physical tests were conducted coupled with written examination. However, he was not selected despite obtaining higher marks than respondent No. 4 which was challenged before the learned Single Bench which was dismissed.

Thus, this appeal.

4. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated

07.08.2025 and the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “ XXX

8. Perusal of Selection list of OBC category Annexure P/7, Selection list and Waiting list of all category Annexure P/2 and Merit list Annexure P/9, shows that petitioner had obtained total 136 marks, whereas, the private respondent No.4/Kishore Kumar had obtained total 132 marks, thus, total marks of the petitioner is higher than the private respondent No.4/Kishore Kumar, but as per the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents and advertisement Clause-2, 25% posts were reserved for the Home Guard. The Selection list and Waiting list of all category Annexure P/2 and perusal of Selection list of OBC category Annexure P/7, shows that selection of private respondent No. 4 was made in the category of Home Guard for which total 25% posts were reserved as per the advertisement against which 3 candidates were selected in the category of Home Guard by rounding of the percentage for the reserve post of Home Guard.

9. Having considered aforesaid facts, it is clear that though petitioner had obtained higher total marks than private respondent No.4, but selection of private respondent No.4 was made in the reserve category of Home Guard, hence, his selection is not found to be against the applicable rules and advertisement.

10. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the Selection list and Waiting list of all category (Annexure P/2) prepared by the respondent authority. Therefore, n