Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 12544

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
PRASANTI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPS No. 5769 of 2018|WPS No. 1074 of 2019|WPS No. 1091 of 2019|WPS No. 705 of 2019|WPS No. 703 of 2019|WPS No. 553 of 2019|WPS No. 6079 of 2018|WPS No. 5764 of 2018|WPS No. 5765 of 2018|WPS No. 5775 of 2018|WPS No. 5783 of 2018|WPS No. 5785 of 2018|WPS No. 5781 of 2018|WPS No. 5903 of 2018|WPS No. 5773 of 2018|WPS No. 6101 of 2018|WPS No. 722 of 2019|WPS No. 729 of 2019|WPS No. 1094 of 2019|WPS No. 5533 of 2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akath Kumar Yadav, Kusum Lalchandani, Harish Khutiya
For the Respondents: Anil S. Pandey, Saumya Sharma

A select list derived from a recruitment process expires once all advertised vacancies are filled. Filling additional, subsequently created vacancies from the same list without a fresh advertisement is constitutionally impermissible and constitutes an illegal appointment that cannot be protected under equitable considerations.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Public Employment - Recruitment process - Validity of appointments made against vacancies arising after conclusion of recruitment - Once notified vacancies are filled, select list cannot be used as a reservoir for filling future vacancies - Appointments made against additional posts created after recruitment process, without fresh advertisement, are dehors the scheme of public employment and violate the constitutional mandate of equality. (Paras 8, 9, 20, 24)

(B) Service Law - Appointment - Irregularity vs. Illegality - Doctrine of 'fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant' - Right to appointment cannot be claimed if obtained by fraud or misrepresentation - While sympathetic view may be taken for irregular appointments due to administrative error where candidates acted bona fide, same is inapplicable where appointments are made against non-existent or unadvertised vacancies, as such defects go to the root of the matter. (Paras 6, 18, 19, 26)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners participated in a recruitment process for government posts initiated via an advertisement. Following the preparation of a merit list and filling of all notified vacancies, additional posts were created due to infrastructural upgrades. The authorities appointed the petitioners against these subsequent vacancies using the existing, exhausted select list. Following complaints regarding reservation roster violations and procedural irregularities, the appointments were cancelled. After a round of litigation remanding the matter, the authorities reaffirmed the termination, leading to these petitions.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the recruitment process concluded upon the filling of the notified vacancies. Using an exhausted select list to fill future vacancies without a new advertisement constitutes a violation of constitutional equality. The argument for equitable relief based on length of service is rejected because the appointments were fundamentally illegal, being made outside the original recruitment parameters.

Issues: Whether the appointment of candidates against vacancies that arose after the completion of a recruitment process, using a pre-existing select list without a new advertisement, is legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Recruitment must be confined strictly to the number of posts advertised. Once notified vacancies are filled, the selection process terminates, and any attempt to fill future vacancies from the same list violates Articles 14 and 16, rendering such appointments ab initio void regardless of the candidate's bona fide conduct or duration of service.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual history of the recruitment and subsequent cancellation of appointments. (Para 1 , 2 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
2. parties' contentions regarding reservation roster and validity of appointments. (Para 3 , 4)
3. limited relief for irregular appointments lacking fraud or misrepresentation. (Para 6 , 7 , 18)
4. prohibition on filling vacancies beyond those advertised using expired select lists. (Para 8 , 9 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. dismissal of petitions due to illegal appointments against unadvertised posts. (Para 26 , 27)

Order on Board

1. In this batch of petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Commissioner, Surguja, dated 05.06.2018, whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioners were dismissed and the order passed by the Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj dated 29.11.2017 was affirmed.

2. Facts of the present case are as under:-

A. An advertisement was issued by the Office of Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj on 04.04.2012, vide Annexure for 268 posts of Peon and 72 posts for Assistant Grade-III.

B. The eligibility criteria for the post of Peon was class 5th pass, whereas for the post of Assistant Grade-III, it was 12th pass or Ist year of graduation along with one-year diploma in Data Entry Operator and a typing speed of 5000 key depressions per hour.

C. The petitioners submitted their application forms for respective posts of Assistant Grade-III and Peon.

D. The petitioners and other candidates were required to appear in the the written test and skill test.

E. Vide notification dated 04.12.2012, State Government issued amended reservation roster.

F. The petitioners participated in the examination, and thereafter select list of 1521 candidates was published on 01.05.2013. Thereafter, appointment orders were issued in favour of the selected candidates on 02.07.2013 against 355 posts of Peon and 64 posts for Assistant Grade-III.

G. The appointment orders in favour of the 24 candidates, who are the petitioners herein, were issued on 01.01.2014. Pursuant to the orders of appointment, the petitioners joined service as Peon and Assistant Grade-III, thereafter, various complaints were received by the District Collector against selection list & appointment ordres.

H. Allegations were made to the effect that the reservation roster was not followed and appointments against subsequently sanctioned posts were made without proper advertisement. The Collector, vide order dated 05.10.2015, cancelled the appointment of 57 Peons and 11 Assistant Grade-III candidates. The names of the petitioners were part of order dated 05.10.2015 in those 57 candidates, thereafter, the petitioners preferred writ petitions before the High Court, and WPS No. 4091/2015 and other connected matters were registered. Those petitions were disposed of vide order dated 04.04.2017, whereby the order passed by the Collector was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Collector. Liberty was granted to Collector to initiate a fresh enquiry in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

I. On 03.08.2017, the Collector issued show-cause notices to the petitioners and other 33 selected candidates, afforded opportunity of hearing, and thereafter cancelled their appointments vide order dated 19.11.2017. The petitioners preferred appeals before the Commissioner challenging the said order. The Commissioner partly allowed the appeals by restoring the appointments of 33 candidates but dismissed the appeals preferred by the present petitioners vide order dated 05.06.2018; thus, the order passed by the Collector was affirmed against which, these petitions have been preferred.

3. Mr. Akhat Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, who is leading the arguments would make following submission(s):-

A. Reservation roster was notified by the State Government on 04.12.2012, whereas the advertisement was issued prior to said date

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 12544

Cases Referred (3)