A public service commission has the inherent power to regulate internal examination procedures. Horizontal reservation must be implemented as an interlocking mechanism within vertical categories, and candidates are generally estopped from challenging established selection criteria and processes after participating in the selection without prior protest.

C.A.V. Order

Per; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

1. A perusal of the contents and the factual matrix involved in all the writ petitions reveals that the core issue in controversy is identical in each of them. In view of the commonality of the questions involved, all these writ petitions were clubbed together, heard analogously, and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The aforesaid batch of writ petitions has been instituted by the respective petitioners calling in question the legality, constitutional propriety, and procedural sanctity of the actions undertaken by the Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “CGPSC”) in amending its Rules of Procedure and in preparing the final select lists for appointment to the posts of Assistant Professor in various disciplines. At the heart of the controversy lies the III Amendment Notification bearing No. 2268/Ped/2014/Su.Prau dated 19.03.2021, whereby the CGPSC amended the CGPSC Rules of Procedure, 2014 by inserting a new Clause 17.6. The petitioners contend that the said newly introduced Clause 17.6 has been applied retrospectively and mechanically in the preparation of final select lists for the posts of Assistant Professor in Physics, Chemistry, and Commerce, thereby materially altering the manner of selection and reservation after the initiation of the recruitment process. The gravamen of challenge is threefold which is as under :

• Firstly, the petitioners assail the constitutional validity of Clause 17.6 on the ground that it is ultra vires Article 320 of the Constitution of India, which delineates the constitutional functions and limitations of a Public Service Commission. It is contended that the impugned amendment travels beyond the permissible scope of procedural regulation and encroaches upon substantive aspects of reservation and selection in a manner not sanctioned by constitutional or statutory mandate. The petitioners further submit that the impugned clause is in direct conflict with Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, inasmuch as it allegedly distorts the scheme of horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities (Divyangjan category), thereby frustrating the statutory framework governing such reservation.

• Secondly, the petitioners challenge the consequential Final Selection Lists issued on 26.06.2021, 06.07.2021 and 29.07.2021 for the posts of Assistant Professor in Chemistry, Commerce, and Physics respectively. According to them, the select lists were prepared strictly on the basis of the impugned Clause 17.6, resulting in an impermissible and excessive application of horizontal reservation under the Physically Handicapped/Divyangjan quota. In certain cases, despite notified vacancies in a particular vertical category (e.g., Scheduled Caste) being specific and determinate, one post has allegedly been left vacant under the pretext of “carry forward” for want of a Divyang candidate, an approach which, according to the petitioners, is alien to the settled principles governing horizontal reservation. The petitioners assert that horizontal reservation must operate within the notified vacancies and cannot result in artificial vacancy creation or distortion of the vertical roster.

• Thirdly, in some of the writ petitions, the selection of private respondents has been specifically challenged on the allegation that their appointment was secured not on merit but by reason of an allegedly disproportionate and erroneous application of the Divyang quota. The petitioners, who claim to have secured higher merit positions within their respective categories, contend that they have been unlawfully relegated to the supplementary or waiting lists solely due to the flawed implementation of the impugned amendment.

• In addition to the constitutional and statutory challenges, certain petitioners have raised serious objections regarding arbitrariness and lack of transparency in the selection process. It is contended that t