Safiya Malik

The Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, dismissed a writ appeal challenging the selection process for recruitment to posts such as Stenographer, Steno Typist, and Assistant Grade III. The Bench declined to interfere with the process on the grounds that the selection had already concluded and the shortlisting was conducted as a preliminary step rather than a merit determination.

The Court recorded that the preliminary examination, as per the recruitment advertisement, was intended solely for shortlisting purposes and that reservation principles relating to vertical and horizontal migration were not applicable at this stage.

Also Read: Supreme Court: FIRs Against Borrowers Stand Despite Loan Fraud Classification Being Set Aside I "FIR Sets Law Into Motion" Without Prior Hearing

The appellants, comprising 21 candidates, challenged the recruitment process initiated through an advertisement published by the District and Session Judge, Bilaspur, on 28.06.2023. The grievance arose from the preparation of lists for the skill test phase, where appellants contended that the reservation roster had been incorrectly applied, resulting in the exclusion of candidates who secured higher marks than some shortlisted individuals.

The advertisement stipulated that the preliminary examination would serve exclusively for shortlisting candidates, without adding the preliminary marks to the final merit list. The appellants scored more than the minimum marks recorded for the unreserved category but were not called for the skill test.

Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Ravikar Patel, submitted that the respondent authority's deviation from established principles of vertical reservation discriminated against meritorious candidates from reserved categories. It was argued that "if any candidate obtains higher marks against the unreserved category candidates, then they will be selected against unreserved category candidates," citing the Supreme Court decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India {(1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217)}.

The appellants further relied upon various precedents, including Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Sandeep Choudhary {2022 LiveLaw (SC) 419}, Saurav Yadav v. State of UP {(2021) 4 SCC 542}, Union of India v. M. Selvakumar {(2017) 3 SCC 504}, and R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab {(1995) 2 SCC 745}, to substantiate their position that vertical reservation rules must be adhered to throughout the recruitment process.

On the contrary, learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Y.S. Thakur, representing the State, submitted that the marks obtained in the preliminary examination were not intended for merit determination but only for screening purposes. Citing Pushpendra Kumar Patel v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh {2023 SCC Online MP 12}, it was argued that "rules of reservation related to migration from a reserved category to an unreserved/exempt category at the initial/screening level are not applicable."

Clause 6 of the advertisement explicitly stated that the preliminary examination was to consist of 50 objective-type questions and candidates were to be shortlisted in the ratio of 1:10 for the skill test. The final selection would be based solely on the skill test.

The State further contended that adherence to vertical reservation at the shortlisting stage was not mandated, and the list was prepared correctly based on category-wise performance in the preliminary examination.

The Division Bench noted, "Considering the fact that the selection process is already over, we are not inclined to unsettle the thing which has already been settled." The Court elaborated that the first stage of examination, being a shortlisting process, did not necessitate adherence to vertical reservation norms.

The Court recorded, "The first stage examination being shortlisting of the candidates therefore, it is not necessary for the answering respondent to adopt vertical reservation as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners."

The Court accepted the submission that the selection process involved three stages, where only the skill test would determine the final merit list. It was noted that "the marks obtained in the preliminary examination will not be added for preparation of merit list," aligning with the advertisement terms.

Rejecting the appellants' arguments based on the cited judgments, the Bench observed that those precedents dealt with final selection processes and not preliminary shortlisting stages.

Also Read: Madras High Court: Surrogacy Guidelines Uphold Spirit of the Act I Certificates Must Be Issued Locally to Prevent Misuse

The Court further remarked, "We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court."

The Division Bench concluded that no ground was made out to interfere with the judgment of the Single Judge. It thus ordered, "Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s)."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For Appellants: Mr. Ravikar Patel, Advocate

For Respondents: Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General

Case Title: Mahesh Kumar and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:18997-DB

Case Number: WA No. 272 of 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

[Read/Download order]