Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9929

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Achinta Bhowmik – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 7387 of 2022|WPS No. 8782 of 2022|WPS No. 1193 of 2023|WPS No. 5996 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.N. Bhakta, Vivek Bhakta
For the Respondents: Yashwant Singh Thakur

Mere participation in a recruitment process confers no indefeasible right to appointment. The State is empowered and duty-bound to cancel a selection process to rectify inconsistencies with parent statutory rules, ensuring that appointments are made strictly in accordance with law, provided such action is bona fide.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Recruitment and Promotion - Public employment - Judicial review - Interference - Scope and ambit - Recruitment process - Cancellation - Mere participation in a selection process does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment or even to insist upon declaration of result - State is competent to rectify an illegality at any stage prior to finalization - Courts cannot issue a mandamus directing authorities to act in contravention of laws or against statutory provisions. (Paras 39, 47, 48, 58)

(B) Statutory Rules - Subordinate legislation - Inconsistency - Requirement of conformity - Rules framed by central authority prevail over state-level recruitment rules - State cannot perpetuate an error in recruitment process that is inconsistent with parent statutory framework - Amendment to rules to bring them in harmony with parent legislation is not arbitrary. (Paras 33, 36, 50, 52)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, who were in-service employees, participated in a departmental promotion competitive examination. After the examination was conducted under interim court orders, the respondents cancelled the entire recruitment process before declaring the results. Subsequently, the relevant recruitment rules were amended to introduce a mandatory educational qualification, and a fresh recruitment advertisement was issued. The petitioners challenged the cancellation of the earlier examination and the new advertisement, arguing that the “rules of the game” were changed midstream and that their eligibility should be governed by the unamended rules.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the initial recruitment advertisement was inconsistent with the parent statutory framework governing the post. The cancellation of the selection process was deemed a bona fide act to rectify a potential illegality. The amendments to the recruitment rules were viewed as a necessary harmonizing measure to align state regulations with central statutory requirements rather than an arbitrary change in selection criteria.

Issues: Whether the candidates possess a vested right to appointment after participating in a recruitment examination, and whether the state can cancel a recruitment process to align it with statutory qualifications.

Ratio Decidendi: A candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment or declaration of results merely by participating in a recruitment process. The State has the power and duty to rectify errors or inconsistencies with statutory provisions at any stage before the culmination of the selection process. Statutory requirements (parent legislation) override subordinate recruitment rules, and an amendment intended to achieve such conformity does not violate fairness in public employment.

Result: All writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual context of the recruitment process and subsequent cancellation. (Para 3 , 4 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
2. petitioners' claims of vested rights and prohibition of retrospective rule changes. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
3. respondent's justification of statutory compliance and non-existence of vested rights. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. subordinate legislation must strictly conform to parent statutory frameworks. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
5. no indefeasible right to appointment exists prior to final selection. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
6. dismissal of petitions for inability to establish legal infirmity. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62)

CAV Order

1. Heard Mr. A.N. Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners as well as Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State.

2. Since a common question of law and fact is involved in all these writ petitions, they were clubbed together, heard analogously with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, and are being decided by this common order.

3. The grievances raised by all the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions are essentially common in nature. A Departmental Promotion Competitive Examination was conducted by the Department of Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, State of Chhattisgarh, for promotion to the post of Inspector (Legal Metrology). The petitioners, who were working as Assistant Grade-III in the offices of the Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology (Weight and Measure) in different districts, participated in the said departmental examination pursuant to the advertisement/ recruitment process initiated by the Department for filling up the promotional posts.

4. According to the petitioners, their candidature was duly scrutinized and verified by the respondent authorities and, upon such verification, they were permitted to participate in the departmental promotion examination for advancement to the post of Inspector. The petitioners accordingly appeared in the examination conducted on 17.12.2022. However, subsequently and without declaring the results, the entire recruitment/promotion process was cancelled by the respondent authorities. In certain cases, some of the petitioners were also declared ineligible to participate in the said departmental examination, which action has also been called in question in the respective writ petitions.

5. Thus, in sum and substance, the core grievance of all the petitioners is directed against the cancellation of the Departmental Promotion Competitive Examination to the post of Inspector (Legal Metrology).

6. By way of the present batch of petitions, the petitioners have essentially challenged the respective impugned orders/advertisements issued by the respondent authorities whereby they have either been declared ineligible to participate in the Departmental Promotion Competitive Examination, the examination conducted on 17.12.2022 has been cancelled, or a fresh advertisement dated 10.08.2023 has been issued allegedly to their prejudice. The petitioners have, therefore, sought quashment of the said impugned actions and consequential directions permitting them to participate in the departmental promotion examination and/or for declaration of the result of the examination already conducted, as the case may be.

7. In WPS No.7387/2022, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:-

“10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from the authorities concerned for its kind perusal.

10.2 That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the Impugned order dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure P-1 - with respect to petitioners are concerned), Issued by the Respondent No.03, whereby the petitioners have been declared in-eligi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9929

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURAmitendra Kishore Prasad, JAchinta Bhowmik – AppellantVersusState Of Chhattisgarh – RespondentWPS No. 7387 of 2022|WPS No. 8782 of 2022|WPS No. 1193 of 2023|WPS No. 5996 of 2023

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
Achinta Bhowmik – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 7387 of 2022|WPS No. 8782 of 2022|WPS No. 1193 of 2023|WPS No. 5996 of 2023