[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Makhan Lal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 March, 2026
1
Digitally
signed by
AFR
SHAYNA
KADRI
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Reserved for orders on : 10.02.2026
Order passed on : 13.03.2026
WPS No. 5102 of 2021
1 - Makhan Lal S/o Balakdas Baghel Aged About 33 Years R/o House
No. 71/3, Village Bharewa, Tahsil Pathariya District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher
Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (C G P S C) Through Its
Secretary, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur
Chhattisgarh
3 - Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission ( C G P S
C) Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPS No. 3636 of 2022
1 - Nand Lal Sahu S/o Bhukhau Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village
Kotmi Sonar, Tehsil - Akaltara, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher
Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2
2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Through Its
Secretary, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Exam Controller Chattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc)
Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Ajay Kumar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Achanakpali, Post -
Chhind Sarangarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Manbodh Chouhan Aged About 29 Years R/o Bariharpali, Post -
Singhpur Saraipali, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Gemlata Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Parskol, Post -
Bana, Police Station - Aarang, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
7 - Kuleshwar Prasad Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Mohda,
Post - Tarpongi, Tilda, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
8 - Mansukh Lal Verma Aged About 44 Years R/o Village - Khairghiti,
Post - Dumardihkhurud Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPS No. 5350 of 2021
1 - Khilesh Verma S/o Bishal Singh Verma, Aged About 44 Years R/o
Near Akash Gas Godam, Shri Nagar Gudhiyari, Po Wrs, Raipur District
Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Ritesh Kumar Jaiswal, S/o Krishna Kumar Jaiswal, Aged About 41
Years R/o Village Kathotia, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh,
District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher
Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Through Its
Secretary, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc)
Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur Chhattisgarh,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3
4 - Ajay Kumar Aged About 30 Years Through The Exam Controller
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Bhagat Singh Chowk,
Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
5 - Manbod Chouhan, Aged About 29 Years Through The Exam
Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Bhagat
Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6 - Gemlata Sahu, Aged About 35 Years Through The Exam Controller
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Bhagat Singh Chowk,
Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
7 - Kuleshwar Prasad Sahu, Aged About 35 Years Through The Exam
Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Bhagat
Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
8 - Mansukh Lal Verma, Aged About 44 Years Through The Exam
Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Bhagat
Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WPS No. 5117 of 2021
1 - Pooja Singh D/o Ghanshyam Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o
Railway Station Para, Kunjnagar, Surajpur District Surajpur
(Chhattisgarh), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Bhushashi Khunte D/o Birsat Ram Khunte Aged About 27 Years R/o
Ward No. 09, Jamgahan, Tahsil And District Janjgir-Champa
(Chhattisgarh)
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher
Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur
(Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc) Through Its
Secretary, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur
(Chhattisgarh)
3 - Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc),
Bhagat Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
4
4 - Hemendra Kumar Patel Aged About 41 Years Through The Exam
Controller, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc), Bhagat
Singh Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
5 - Mahesh Kumar Aged About 40 Years Through The Exam Controller,
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (Cgpsc), Bhagat Singh
Chowk, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
--- Respondent(s)
(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Ahmed Ayaaz Mirza, Advocate
For State/Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. Advocate
General
For CGPSC/Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate
and 3 assisted by Mr. Pratik Vishwakarma,
Advocate
(Division Bench)
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
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
5
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
6
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
7
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 the CGPSC failed to publish
the comparative merit list and waiting list, thereby depriving
candidates of the opportunity to ascertain their marks and
verify the fairness of the selection. Such non-disclosure, it
is urged, is in contravention of Rule 12 of the Chhattisgarh
Higher Education Department (Collegiate Branch Gazetted)
Recruitment Rules, 2019, which mandates publication of
the select list on the official website. The plea of the
Commission that the matter was sub judice is stated to be
untenable in the absence of any prohibitory interim order
restraining declaration of results. In one of the petitions,
the consequential appointment order dated 21.01.2022 has
also been impugned on the ground that it is founded upon
an allegedly illegal and constitutionally infirm selection list,
and therefore cannot survive independently once the
8
foundational process itself is under challenge. In essence,
the writ petitions have been filed to vindicate the petitioners'
fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India, to assail the vires of the impugned
amendment introducing Clause 17.6, and to seek judicial
scrutiny of the manner in which horizontal reservation for
persons with disabilities has been operationalised in the
impugned selections, which, according to the petitioners,
has resulted in arbitrariness, illegality, and denial of equal
opportunity in public employment.
3. Before adverting to the rival submissions and examining the
issues arising for consideration, it would be apposite to first
delineate, in seriatim, the specific reliefs sought by the petitioners
in each of the aforesaid writ petitions, so as to clearly comprehend
the precise nature and ambit of the challenge laid before this
Court. The petitioners have prayed for following reliefs :--
W.P.S. No. - 5102/2021
"10.1 To kindly hold and declare that
the impugned Clause no.1 of the III
Amendment Notification vide
no.2268/Ped/2014/Su.Prau dated
19/03/2021 issued by the respondent
Chhattisgarh State Public Service
Commission (in short CGPSC)
amending the CGPSC Rules of
Procedure and-2014 (in short ROP) is
ultra vires to the Constitution of India.
(Annexure P/1) .
9
10.2 To kindly quash the impugned final
selection list dated 29/07/2021 and
direct the respondent CG Public
Service Commission to re-issue the
select list in accordance with law.
(Annexure P/2).
10.3 To kindly direct the respondent CG
Public Service Commission to consider
the petitioner for selection in the SC
category.
10.4 To kindly make any other order
that may be deemed fit and just in the
facts and circumstances of the case
including awarding of the costs to the
petitioner."
W.P.S. No. - 5117/2021
"10.1 To kindly hold and declare that
the impugned Clause no.1 of the 111
Amendment Notification vide
no.2268/Ped/2014/Su.Prau dated
19/03/2021 issued by the respondent
Chhattisgarh State Public Service
Commission (in short CGPSC)
amending the CGPSC Rules of
Procedure and-2014 (in short ROP) is
ultra vires to the Constitution of India.
(Annexure P/1) .
10.2 To kindly quash the impugned
final selection list dated 26/06/2021 and
direct the respondent CG Public
Service Commission to re-issue the
select list in accordance with law.
(Annexure P/2) .
10.3 To kindly direct the respondent
CG Public Service Commission to
cancel the selection of less meritorious
10
respondents no.4 and 5 for the post of
Assistant Professor- Chemistry and
consider the petitioners for selection in
the unreserved category.
10.4 To kindly make any other order
that may be deemed fit and just in the
facts and circumstances of the case
including awarding of the costs to the
petitioner."
W.P.S. No. - 5350/2021
"10.1 To kindly hold and declare that
the impugned Clause no.1 of the III
Amendment Notification vide
no.2268/Ped/2014/Su.Prau dated
19/03/2021 issued by the respondent
Chhattisgarh State Public Service
Commission (in short CGPSC)
amending the CGPSC Rules of
Procedure and-2014 (in short ROP) is
ultra vires to the Constitution of India.
(Annexure P/1) .
10.2 To kindly quash the impugned final
selection list dated 06/07/2021 and
direct the respondent CG Public
Service Commission to re-issue the
select list in accordance with law.
(Annexure P/2) .
10.3 To kindly direct the respondent CG
Public Service Commission to cancel
the selection of less meritorious
respondents no.4 to 8 for the post of
Assistant Professor- Commerce and
consider the petitioner for selection in
the unreserved category in accordance
with the merit which has been kept
abreast by the PSC itself.
10.4 To kindly direct the respondent CG
11
Public Service Commission to forthwith
issue the merit list and waiting list of the
Commerce subject showing
comparative merits of the candidates.
10.5 To kindly make any other order
that may be deemed fit and just in the
facts and circumstances of the case
including awarding of the costs to the
petitioner."
W.P.S. No. - 3636/2022
"10.1 To kindly hold and declare that
the impugned Clause no.1 of the III
Amendment Notification vide
no.2268/Ped/2014/Su.Prau dated
19/03/2021 issued by the respondent
Chhattisgarh State Public Service
Commission (in short CGPSC)
amending the CGPSC Rules of
Procedure and-2014 (in short ROP) is
ultra vires to the Constitution of India.
(Annexure P/1)
10.2 To kindly quash the impugned final
selection list dated 06/07/2021
(Annexure P/2) and direct the
respondent CG Public Service
Commission to re-issue the select list in
accordance with law.
10.3 To kindly quash the appointment
order dated 21/01/2022 (Annexure P/3)
issued by the State
Government/Respondent no.1.
10.4 To kindly direct the respondent CG
Public Service Commission to cancel
the selection of less meritorious
respondents no.4 to 8 for the post of
Assistant Professor-Commerce and
12
consider the petitioner for selection in
the unreserved category in accordance
with the merit which has been kept
abreast by the PSC itself.
10.5 To kindly direct the respondent CG
Public Service Commission to forthwith
issue the merit list and waiting list of the
Commerce subject showing
comparative merits of the candidates.
10.6 To kindly make any other order
that may be deemed fit and just in the
facts and circumstances of the case
including awarding of the costs to the
petitioner."
4. The brief facts of the case, as projected in all the writ petition, are
that these petitions arise out of a common recruitment process
initiated by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission
(hereinafter referred to as "CGPSC") for appointment to the post
of Assistant Professor in various subjects under the Higher
Education Department, State of Chhattisgarh. The State
Government, in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of
the Constitution of India, notified the Chhattisgarh Higher
Education Department (Collegiate Branch Gazetted) Recruitment
Rules, 2019 on 16.01.2019, wherein the cadre strength of
Assistant Professors was prescribed as 3855 posts. Pursuant to
the said statutory framework, CGPSC issued Advertisement No.
02/2019 dated 18.01.2019, published on 23.01.2019, inviting
applications for 1384 posts of Assistant Professor in different
13
subjects including Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Commerce.
The present petitioners belong to these respective subjects and
participated in the same selection process. It is not in dispute that
the advertisement underwent several corrigenda whereby the
upper age limit was enhanced, certain posts were identified and
re-identified for Persons with Disabilities, and the number of posts
reserved for Divyang candidates was revised. The petitioners,
being eligible in all respects, submitted their applications which
were accepted by the Commission. They thereafter appeared in
the written examination conducted in November 2020 and were
subsequently called for interview. The grievance common to all
the petitioners is that after completion of the written examination
and interviews, the Commission did not publish a separate written
merit list, did not disclose interview marks, and did not publish any
waiting list. Instead, a final select list was directly issued in July
2021. During the pendency of the recruitment process, CGPSC
issued a notification dated 19.03.2021 amending the CGPSC
Rules of Procedure, 2014 by inserting Clause 17.6 including
Clause 17.6.1.6. The said provision stipulated that candidates
securing marks equal to or more than the minimum qualifying
marks prescribed for the Unreserved category would be identified
under the Unreserved category irrespective of the vertical
category to which they originally belonged. According to the
petitioners, this amendment was introduced after the written
examination had already been conducted and was applied while
14
preparing the final select list, thereby altering the manner in which
horizontal reservation for Persons with Disabilities was to be
implemented. It is contended that the amendment materially
changed the criteria governing migration of candidates across
categories and adversely affected the rights of meritorious
candidates. The petitioners collectively assert that reservation for
Persons with Disabilities under Section 34 of the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is horizontal in nature and is
required to operate within the respective vertical categories. It is
their case that a candidate belonging to SC, ST or OBC category
who is also a person with disability cannot be shifted to the
Unreserved category merely by virtue of securing marks
equivalent to the minimum qualifying marks of the Unreserved
category unless such candidate is selected strictly on open merit
without availing the benefit of reservation. The petitioners contend
that by virtue of Clause 17.6.1.6, a sub-classification has
effectively been created within the Unreserved category, resulting
in selection of less meritorious candidates over more meritorious
general category candidates. In WPS No. 3636/2022 pertaining
to the subject of Commerce, an additional challenge has been
raised questioning the very competence of CGPSC to frame or
amend Rules of Procedure in a manner affecting substantive
rights. It is contended that the amended Rules of Procedure lack
statutory force and that in absence of specific legislation enacted
under Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule governing the
15
functioning of the Commission, the amendment is ultra vires
Articles 315 and 320 of the Constitution of India. Another
common grievance raised in the petitions relates to the manner of
calculation and carry forward of vacancies reserved for Persons
with Disabilities. It is contended that Section 34 of the 2016 Act
mandates computation of the minimum four percent reservation
on the basis of cadre strength and not on the basis of advertised
vacancies. Since the cadre strength of Assistant Professors is
3855 posts, the petitioners submit that the Commission erred in
calculating reservation on the basis of 1384 advertised posts. It is
further alleged that certain vertical category posts, including at
least one Unreserved seat, have been kept vacant and that the
formula adopted for carry forward of backlog vacancies under
Clause 17.6.4 is contrary to law. The petitioners have also
alleged lack of transparency in the selection process. According to
them, non-publication of detailed merit lists and non-disclosure of
comparative marks have deprived them of the opportunity to
meaningfully challenge the selection process. They assert that
introduction and application of amended provisions after
completion of the written examination amounts to changing the
rules of the game after the game has begun, thereby offending
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Thus, all four writ
petitions stem from a common recruitment notification and
challenge the legality of the amended Rules of Procedure dated
19.03.2021, the implementation of horizontal reservation for
16
Persons with Disabilities, the alleged excess and improper carry
forward of reserved vacancies, and the transparency of the
selection process culminating in the final select list issued in July
2021. The petitions, though relating to different subjects, involve
overlapping factual backgrounds and raise interconnected
questions of constitutional and statutory interpretation arising out
of the same selection process conducted by the Chhattisgarh
Public Service Commission.
5. Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Ahmed
Ayaan Mirza, Advocate have advanced elaborate and coordinated
arguments assailing the legality of the III Amendment Notification
dated 19.03.2021 issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission (hereinafter "CGPSC") and the consequential select
list dated 29.07.2021/14.07.2021 for the post of Assistant
Professor (Physics). The grievance, though articulated in separate
pleadings, is substantially common and arises out of the
amendment inserting Clause 17.6 (particularly 17.6.3.5/17.6.4)
into the Rules of Procedure, 2014 and its application in the
preparation of the impugned select list. At the outset, learned
counsel submit that the very foundation of the impugned
amendment is constitutionally unsustainable. It is contended that
the Rules of Procedure, 2014 have been framed by the Secretary
of the Commission as internal guidelines for conduct of
examinations and do not possess statutory character. The III
Amendment Notification dated 19.03.2021, which substantially
17
alters the method of identification and carry-forward of vacancies,
has not been issued by the Governor in exercise of powers under
Article 309 or under the proviso to Article 320(3) of the
Constitution of India. Articles 315 and 320 delineate the
constitutional status and functions of Public Service Commissions.
Article 320(3)(a) mandates consultation of the Commission on
matters relating to recruitment, whereas the proviso thereto
empowers only the Governor (in respect of State services) to
make regulations specifying matters where consultation is not
necessary. It is urged that the power to make binding regulations
affecting recruitment cannot be assumed by the Commission itself
in absence of delegation by the Governor and compliance with
Article 320(5), which requires laying such regulations before the
Legislature for not less than fourteen days. According to learned
counsel, Entry 41 of List II (State List) read with Article 309 makes
it abundantly clear that recruitment and conditions of service are
to be regulated either by legislation or by rules framed by the
Governor. The petitioners do not challenge the validity of the
Chhattisgarh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment
Rules, 2019, which were admittedly framed under Article 309.
However, they specifically challenge the amendment to the Rules
of Procedure, 2014, contending that the same travels beyond
procedural guidance and encroaches upon substantive
reservation policy. In this regard, reliance is placed on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mandeep Singh v.
18
State of Punjab (2025 SCC Online SC 1420), Arunachal
Pradesh Public Service Commission & another v. Tage
Habung & Others [(2013) 7 SCC 737] and Andhra Pradesh
Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath [(2009) 5 SCC
1] to contend that a Public Service Commission cannot assume
legislative authority in the absence of express constitutional
sanction. Learned counsel further submit that no regulation as
contemplated under Article 320(5) has been laid before the State
Legislature. Documents obtained from the official website of the
Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly demonstrate that no such
legislation or regulation was laid in the relevant period. Thus, the
amendment dated 19.03.2021 lacks statutory force within the
meaning of Article 13(3) and is ultra vires the Constitution. On
merits, the principal challenge pertains to the formula introduced
for carry-forward and identification of vacancies of Divyang
(physically handicapped) candidates under Clause 17.6.3.5. It is
argued that reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities is
a horizontal reservation governed by Section 34 of the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Section 34 mandates not less
than four percent reservation in the cadre strength, not in the
notified vacancies. The impugned formula, however, operates
vacancy-wise and proportionately reduces vertical reservation
categories (SC/ST/OBC/UR) in the name of carry-forward of
unfilled horizontal vacancies, thereby distorting the constitutional
scheme. Learned counsel submit that horizontal reservation must
19
operate on the principle of "interlocking" with vertical reservation
as laid down in Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India &
Others [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217] and clarified in Anil Kumar
Gupta v. State of U.P. [1995 (5) SCC 173]. It is argued that the
Commission has failed to clarify whether the horizontal
reservation was compartmentalised or overall. The advertisement
dated 23.01.2019 indicates horizontal and compartment-wise
reservation, yet the actual implementation reflects an overall
adjustment leading to prejudice to vertical categories, particularly
the Unreserved category. To demonstrate the distortion, learned
counsel placed before the Court the subject-wise position for
Physics (Total posts: 116; Select list issued: 92). The vacancy and
selection position, as per petitioners in Physics subject, is as
follows:
Category Total Posts Selected Vacant
UR 35 24 11
OBC 12 11 1
SC 19 18 1
ST 50 33 17
It is contended that though 10 posts were shown as reserved for
physically handicapped candidates (5 current + 5 backlog), 7% of
116 posts would mathematically amount to approximately 8 posts.
The Commission, by applying the impugned formula, has
20
deducted 11 seats from the Unreserved category under the guise
of carry-forward. The petitioners argue that such deduction is
contrary to the law laid down in Rajesh Kumar Daria v.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission [2007 (8) SCC 785] and
Sourav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2021 (4) SCC 542],
which emphasize correct sequencing in application of vertical and
horizontal reservations. Particular emphasis is laid on the case of
Jagdish Kumar (SC category), who secured 215.9986 marks and
stood at Sl. No. 25 in the merit list. It is argued that he ought to
have been adjusted against the Unreserved category on merit,
thereby freeing one SC seat. By not adjusting him in the UR
category, the Commission has compromised the SC quota and
distorted the merit-based allocation. This, according to counsel,
violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is further
submitted that the Commission's stand is self-contradictory. In one
breath, it asserts that the selection list was prepared on the basis
of the 08.03.2017 amendment; in another, it admits in paragraph
8(c) of its reply that the calculation formula of 19.03.2021 was
applied. This inconsistency, counsel argue, reveals arbitrariness
and lack of transparency. Learned counsel also contend that
carry-forward of horizontal reservation must relate to cadre
strength and not merely to advertised vacancies. In support,
reliance is placed upon Ramnaresh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2024 SCC Online SC 2058) and Sadhna Singh Dangi v. Pinki
Asati [(2022) 12 SCC 401. Addressing the preliminary objection
21
that candidates who participated in the selection process cannot
challenge it after failure, counsel rely upon Dr. Major Meeta
Sahai v. State of Bihar [(2019) 20 SCC 17] to submit that
participation does not bar challenge where the illegality pertains to
a constitutional or statutory violation in the process itself. The
petitioners participated as per prescribed rules but cannot be
estopped from questioning unconstitutional amendments. On the
objection of non-joinder of necessary parties, it is submitted that
all affected candidates have been impleaded in a representative
capacity and the challenge is to the systemic illegality in
preparation of the select list. Reliance is placed on Union of India
v. O. Chakradhar [(2002) 3 SCC 146], General Manager, South
Central Railway v. A.V.R. Siddhanti [(1974) 4 SCC 335], V. P.
Shrivastava v. State of M.P. [(1996) 7 SCC 759] and Ajay
Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai [(2022) 12 SCC 579] to contend
that in cases involving challenge to an entire selection process,
individual impleadment of every selected candidate is not
mandatory.
6. Learned counsel submit that petitioner No. 1, Pooja Singh,
(W.P.S. No. 5117/2021 - Pooja Singh & Anr. v. State of
Chhattisgarh & Others) (Subject: Chemistry) belongs to the
Unreserved category and stood at Serial No. 2 in the waiting list
(later appointed upon vacancy), whereas petitioner No. 2 belongs
to the Scheduled Caste category and stood at Serial No. 14 in the
consolidated waiting list and Serial No. 2 in the SC waiting list. In
22
the subject of Chemistry, total posts advertised were 150, out of
which select list was issued for 118 posts. The category-wise
position is demonstrated thus:
Category Total Posts Selected Vacant
UR 40(12 women) 37 3 (effectively 5
unfilled)
OBC 14(3 women) 13 1
SC 17 (4 women) 16 1
ST 79 (23 women) 50 29
It is submitted that though 40 posts were earmarked for UR
category, only 37 were filled. Out of the 3 shown as vacant, 2
were treated as UR-PH and filled by OBC candidates (Sl. Nos. 67
& 68), namely Hemendra Kumar Patel (OBC - selected as UR-
PH-OL) and Mahesh Kumar (OBC - selected as UR-PH-OL).
Learned counsel contend that under compartmentalised
horizontal reservation, only one OBC physically handicapped
candidate could have been adjusted in UR-PH slot; however, two
such candidates were accommodated, thereby diminishing the
effective UR quota. It is further pointed out that 7% of 150 posts
would mathematically amount to 10.5 seats, whereas the
advertisement dated 23.11.2019 shows 6 current and 4 backlog
PH seats. The petitioners argue that the application of the
amended formula resulted in distortion of both vertical and
horizontal quotas. In SC category, although 17 posts were
23
earmarked, 16 were filled and additionally SC-PH candidates
(Ben Vikram Barman and Santosh Kumar Dahariya) were
accommodated, resulting in excess adjustment and improper
interlocking. Similarly, OBC-PH and SC-PH adjustments were
made without strictly following the compartmentalised model
mandated in Rajesh Kumar Daria (Supra) and Swati Gupta v.
State of U.P [(1995) 2 SCC 560]. Learned counsel argue that
horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities, as clarified by
circular dated 27.09.2014 (relied upon by the Commission itself),
is compartmentalised and must operate within each vertical
category, not by wholesale adjustment at the UR level.
7. In the subject of Commerce (W.P.S. No. 3636/2021 - Nand Lal
Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and W.P.S. No. 5350/2021
- Khilesh Verma & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), 184
total posts were advertised and select list issued for 179 posts.
The vertical breakup is as follows:
Category Total Posts Selected Vacant
UR 44(15 women) 35 9
SC 27(7 women) 27 0
ST 89 (26 women) 88 1
OBC 24 (6 women) 22 2
PH (Overall) 11 (OA-OL) Adjusted across -
categories
24
Learned counsel emphasize that out of 44 UR posts, only 35
candidates were selected on merit, despite women quota already
being satisfied. Thus, 9 UR posts remained effectively unfilled.
However, those vacancies were not filled from the waiting list;
instead, multiple candidates belonging to OBC and SC categories
were adjusted as UR-PH candidates. Specifically, 3 OBC
candidates (Sl. Nos. 137, 144 & 146) were selected as UR-PH-
OL, 2 UR candidates (Sl. Nos. 126 & 128) were selected as UR-
PH (OA-OL), 2 SC candidates (Sl. Nos. 106 & 130) were selected
as UR-PH, 1 OBC candidate (Sl. No. 152) selected as OBC-PH-
OA and 1 SC candidate (Sl. No. 179) selected as SC-PH-OL. It is
contended that such cross-category adjustment without first
completing vertical quota strictly on merit violates the sequencing
principle laid down in Sourav Yadav (Supra) and State of Tamil
Nadu v. K. Shobana [2021 (4) SCC 686]. The proper course, as
repeatedly emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is to fill
Open Category (merit) seats first, fill vertical reserved categories.
Thereafter apply horizontal reservation by interlocking and
adjustment. Learned counsel submit that the Commission
reversed or conflated these steps, thereby reducing available
vertical seats in the name of horizontal adjustment. It is further
argued that even in OBC category, though 24 posts were
earmarked, only 22 were filled and two left vacant. However,
instead of filling those from eligible OBC candidates, the
Commission proceeded with PH adjustments across categories.
25
In SC category, 27 posts were filled, including 1 SC-PH, but
without undertaking a lawful identification process for carry-
forward in accordance with Section 34 of the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016. The petitioners, particularly in W.P.S.
No. 5350/2021 and 3636/2021, belong to OBC category and
contend that their legitimate right of consideration against vertical
OBC quota has been adversely affected by improper diversion of
seats under the impugned formula introduced on 19.03.2021.
Learned counsel collectively submit that the amendment dated
19.03.2021 is constitutionally ultra vires Articles 309 and 320, as it
was not framed by the Governor nor laid before the Legislature.
The formula for carry-forward under Clause 17.6 violates Section
34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 by
computing reservation vacancy-wise instead of cadre-strength-
wise. Horizontal reservation for PH candidates is
compartmentalised, as per circular dated 27.09.2014 and binding
precedents including Rajesh Kumar Daria (Supra). The
sequencing principle laid down in Sourabh Yadav (Supra) has
been violated. Excess or misallocated PH adjustments have
diminished UR and OBC vertical quotas. Waiting list candidates,
including Pooja Singh and others, were entitled to appointment
against wrongly withheld UR vacancies. Carry-forward should
have been done after proper identification and only against cadre
strength, not by reducing notified vertical vacancies. Thus, it is
emphatically submitted that the impugned select lists dated
26
14.07.2021/29.07.2021 in Physics, Chemistry and Commerce
suffer from systemic illegality in the application of horizontal
reservation, unconstitutional amendment of procedural rules, and
misapplication of binding Supreme Court precedents.
8. In sum, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the
amendment dated 19.03.2021 is ultra vires Articles 309 and 320.
The formula for carry-forward violates Section 34 of the RPwD
Act, 2016. Horizontal reservation has been improperly applied,
reducing vertical quotas. The select list dated
29.07.2021/14.07.2021 is constitutionally unsustainable. The
impugned notification and consequential select list deserve to be
quashed, and the Commission be directed to redraw the select list
strictly in accordance with constitutional principles governing
vertical and horizontal reservations. Thus, the learned counsel
urge this Court to declare Clause 17.6 (as amended on
19.03.2021) unconstitutional and to set aside the impugned select
list with consequential directions for fresh preparation in
accordance with law.
9. Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate apprearing on behalf of the
respondent, namely the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission,
submits that much of the controversy sought to be projected by
the petitioners dissolves the moment the vacancy position is
examined in its correct structural framework. The grievance is not
rooted in any illegality; rather, it arises from a misreading of how
27
vertical and horizontal reservations are intended to operate in
tandem. Therefore, before adverting to legal submissions, it
becomes necessary to present the vacancy architecture in a lucid
and expanded form so that the Court may appreciate that the
Commission has acted with mathematical precision, constitutional
fidelity and complete transparency. The recruitment was initiated
for 1,384 posts of Assistant Professor under Advertisement No.
02/2019. Insofar as the present writ petitions concern the subjects
of Physics, Commerce and Chemistry, the vacancy distribution,
after compliance with judicial directions and revision of reservation
for Persons with Disabilities in accordance with the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the law declared in Union
of India v. National Federation of the Blind [(2013) 10 SCC
772], stood finalised. The following charts demonstrate not merely
the raw numerical allocation, but the structural layering of vertical
and horizontal reservations, thereby making it evident that
horizontal reservations were interlocked within vertical
compartments and not superimposed in a manner that would
disturb category equilibrium.
Subject: Physics (Total Posts - 116)
• Step 1: Vertical Distribution as per Recruitment Rules
• Step 2: Horizontal Reservation for Women (Within Each
Vertical Category)
• Step 3: Horizontal Reservation for Persons with Disabilities
Category Total Vertical Women Balance PwD Reserved
Posts Reserved Vertical Posts (Horizontal
28
(Horizontal) out of Total)
UR 35 10 25 -
SC 19 5 14 -
ST 50 14 36 -
OBC 12 3 9 -
Total 116 - 84 (Open 10 (OA-OL
within category)
Vertical)
These 10 posts were not carved out from any single vertical class.
They operated horizontally across UR, SC, ST and OBC in
proportion to their representation in the cadre strength. When
eligible PwD candidates were not available to the full extent of
identified vacancies, the Commission invoked proportional
adjustment and carry forward strictly in terms of Section 34(2) of
the Act of 2016 and the governing Rules of Procedure. The
proportional deduction formula ensured that SC category strength
was adjusted in proportion to its share in total vacancies, ST
category strength was adjusted proportionately, OBC category
strength was adjusted accordingly, Remaining adjustment
balanced within UR, thereby preserving the constitutional
symmetry of reservation percentages under Articles 14 and 16.
This demonstrates that there was no arbitrary depletion of any
particular category. The architecture remained intact; only
mathematical redistribution consistent with statutory command
was undertaken.
Subject: Commerce (Total Posts - 184)
29
• Step 1: Vertical Distribution
• Step 2: Women Reservation (Horizontal Within Vertical)
• Step 3: PwD Reservation (Horizontal Across Total Cadre)
Category Total Vertical Women Reserved PwD Reserved
Posts (Horizontal)
UR 44 11 -
SC 17 4 -
ST 89 23 -
OBC 34 7 -
Total 184 - 11 (OA-OL
category)
Again, these 11 posts were horizontally adjustable across vertical
categories. They did not constitute a fifth vertical class. Their
adjustment was in consonance with the interlocking reservation
doctrine explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saurav
Yadav (Supra). Importantly, interim judicial orders in connected
matters required certain posts to be kept vacant, which explains
the deferred publication of finalised merit positions. However, the
reservation arithmetic itself remained unaltered and legally
compliant.
Subject: Chemistry (Total Posts - 150)
• Step 1: Vertical Distribution
• Step 2: Women Reservation (Horizontal)
• Step 3: PwD Reservation (Horizontal Across Total)
Category Total Vertical Women Reserved PwD Reserved
Posts (Horizontal)
UR 40 12 -
SC 17 4 -
ST 79 23 -
30
OBC 14 3 -
Total 150 - 10 (OA-OL
category)
The same structural methodology was followed. The vertical
backbone of the recruitment remained undisturbed. Horizontal
reservations for Women and PwD were fitted within the vertical
grid without inflating or diluting category strength.
10. What becomes manifest from the above expanded charts is that
the Commission followed a three-layered reservation structure;
First, the vertical compartmentalisation as mandated by statutory
recruitment rules. Second, horizontal reservation for women within
each vertical category. Third, horizontal reservation for Persons
with Disabilities cutting across the entire cadre strength. There
was no retrospective rule application, no post-examination change
of criteria, and no artificial re-engineering of merit. Every
adjustment was traceable either to statutory mandate or binding
precedent, particularly National Federation of the Blind (Supra),
which unequivocally recognised that horizontal reservation must
be computed on total cadre strength and adjusted within vertical
categories without breaching constitutional limits. Thus, when the
petitioners contend that their category strength was "reduced" or
"disturbed," they overlook that the reduction, if any, was
proportionate and statutorily mandated on account of horizontal
reservation. It was not discretionary, but obligatory. The vacancy
charts themselves, when properly appreciated, dismantle the
31
edifice of the petitioners' challenge. The Commission has not
altered the rules; it has operationalised them. It has not
manipulated reservation; it has mathematically implemented it. It
has not deprived any category; it has proportionately balanced all
categories. In the circumstances, the structural clarity emerging
from the above charts reinforces the submission that the selection
process was conducted in strict adherence to constitutional
principles, statutory prescription, and binding judicial precedent.
11. In view of the entire factual matrix, the statutory framework
governing the recruitment, the judicial directions complied with
during the process, and the binding pronouncements of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it becomes abundantly clear that the
challenge mounted in the present batch of writ petitions is devoid
of any sustainable legal foundation. The recruitment in question
was initiated pursuant to a valid advertisement, conducted strictly
in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules framed
under Article 309 of the Constitution, and procedurally regulated
by the Rules of Procedure of the Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission as they stood on the date of advertisement. There
has been no deviation from the governing rules, no retrospective
application of amendments, and no alteration of criteria after
commencement of the selection process. The entire grievance of
the petitioners rests upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the
concept of horizontal reservation. The law as declared in National
Federation of the Blind (Supra) and reiterated in Saurav Yadav
32
(Supra) leaves no manner of doubt that reservation for Persons
with Disabilities is horizontal in nature and must be interlocked
within vertical categories without disturbing their constitutional
structure. The Commission has followed precisely this mandate.
The proportional adjustment undertaken wherever PwD vacancies
remained unfilled was not an act of discretion but a statutory
obligation flowing from Section 34(2) of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016. The mathematical methodology adopted
ensured that no single vertical category was disproportionately
affected and that the equilibrium of reservation percentages
remained intact. It is further significant that all petitioners
participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the
advertisement, the distribution of vacancies, the reservation
framework and the governing Rules of Procedure. They raised no
challenge at the threshold stage. Only after the declaration of the
final selection list and upon finding themselves unsuccessful have
they chosen to question the very mechanism under which they
competed. Such a course is impermissible in law. A candidate
who consciously participates in a selection process cannot
subsequently assail the rules of the game after the result has
gone against him. The doctrine of acquiescence squarely applies.
Moreover, none of the petitioners has demonstrated that he or she
secured marks higher than the last selected candidate in the
respective adjusted category. There is no pleading or material
establishing that a more meritorious candidate has been excluded
33
in favour of a less meritorious one within the same category. In
the absence of such foundational facts, the challenge remains
speculative. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is not intended to
facilitate a roving recalculation of reservation arithmetic or to re-
evaluate merit lists prepared in accordance with statutory norms.
The Commission, being a constitutional authority entrusted with
conducting fair and transparent selections, has discharged its
functions with scrupulous adherence to law. It has complied with
judicial directions, implemented statutory reservation for Persons
with Disabilities, preserved the vertical reservation matrix for SC,
ST and OBC categories, and ensured that horizontal reservations
for women and PwD were adjusted strictly within permissible
limits. The selection process reflects administrative fairness,
constitutional compliance and procedural transparency.
Interference at this stage, in the absence of any demonstrated
illegality, arbitrariness or mala fide exercise of power, would
unsettle a concluded selection, disturb the rights of duly selected
candidates who are not at fault, and undermine the finality
essential to public recruitment processes. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has consistently cautioned that courts must exercise
restraint in matters of academic evaluation and recruitment unless
a clear violation of statutory or constitutional provisions is shown.
No such violation has been established herein. In these
circumstances, it is submitted that the writ petitions are founded
upon an erroneous interpretation of reservation law, lack
34
substantive merit, and do not disclose any ground warranting
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
methodology adopted by the Commission is legally sound,
constitutionally aligned and judicially supported. Accordingly, all
the captioned writ petitions deserve to be dismissed, and the
selection process conducted pursuant to Advertisement No.
02/2019 deserves to be upheld in its entirety.
12. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties at considerable length and with due attention to their
elaborate submissions. We have also carefully perused the
pleadings on record, the documents annexed to the writ petitions,
the counter affidavits and rejoinders filed thereto, as well as the
relevant statutory provisions, rules, notifications and judicial
precedents cited at the Bar. The entire material placed before this
Court has been examined in its proper perspective so as to
appreciate the rival contentions in their correct factual and legal
backdrop.
13. A perusal of the pleadings, documents placed on record, and the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective
parties reveals that the controversy raised in all the four writ
petitions emanates from a common recruitment process and
involves substantially identical questions of constitutional
interpretation and application of reservation principles. Since the
factual backdrop, the impugned amendment, and the selection
35
lists under challenge are interlinked, all the writ petitions were
clubbed together, heard analogously, and are being disposed of
by this common judgment.
14. The petitioners have called in question the constitutional validity of
the III Amendment Notification dated 19.03.2021 issued by the
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, whereby Clause 17.6
was inserted in the Rules of Procedure, 2014. Consequentially,
the final selection lists dated 26.06.2021, 06.07.2021 and
29.07.2021 for the posts of Assistant Professor in Chemistry,
Commerce and Physics respectively have also been assailed. In
one petition, the appointment order dated 21.01.2022 has
additionally been challenged. The core of the petitioners'
grievance is that the amended clause was allegedly applied
retrospectively and resulted in distortion of horizontal reservation
for Persons with Disabilities (PwD), thereby infringing Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India.
15. The recruitment in question was initiated pursuant to
Advertisement No. 02/2019 dated 18.01.2019 issued under the
statutory framework of the Chhattisgarh Higher Education
Department (Collegiate Branch Gazetted) Recruitment Rules,
2019, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. A total of 1384
posts of Assistant Professor were advertised, including posts in
Physics (116), Chemistry (150) and Commerce (184), which are
the subjects relevant for the present petitions. It is not in dispute
36
that the petitioners applied pursuant to the advertisement,
participated in the written examination conducted in November
2020, appeared in the interviews, and awaited the declaration of
final results.
16. During the pendency of the recruitment process, the Commission
issued the III Amendment Notification dated 19.03.2021 inserting
Clause 17.6 in the Rules of Procedure. The said clause
essentially provided a structured mechanism for identification,
adjustment and carry forward of horizontal reservation vacancies,
particularly in relation to Persons with Disabilities. The petitioners
contend that this amendment altered the manner of migration and
adjustment across categories and was applied to a recruitment
process already underway.
17. Before examining the rival contentions, it is apposite to consider
the nature and character of the Rules of Procedure framed by the
Commission. The Commission is a constitutional body established
under Article 315 of the Constitution. Article 320 delineates its
functions, which include conducting examinations for
appointments to the services of the State. The Rules of Procedure
are internal regulatory instruments meant to operationalise the
conduct of examinations and preparation of select lists. They do
not supplant the statutory Recruitment Rules framed under Article
309 but supplement them in matters of implementation. The
petitioners have not challenged the Recruitment Rules of 2019;
37
rather, they have challenged the procedural amendment.
18. It is well settled that a Public Service Commission, being
constitutionally entrusted with conducting selections, possesses
incidental and ancillary powers to regulate its procedure, provided
such regulation does not contravene statutory provisions. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baloji Badhavath (Supra) recognised
that procedural prescriptions framed by a Commission to
effectuate recruitment cannot be lightly interfered with unless they
transgress statutory mandates. The petitioners have not
demonstrated that Clause 17.6 overrides any provision of the
2019 Recruitment Rules.
19. The principal contention advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioners is that horizontal reservation for Persons with
Disabilities has been applied in a manner inconsistent with
Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Section 34 mandates that not less than four percent of the total
number of vacancies in the cadre strength shall be reserved for
persons with benchmark disabilities. The jurisprudence governing
horizontal reservation is now well crystallised. In Indra Sawhney
(Supra), the Constitution Bench explained the distinction between
vertical and horizontal reservations. This principle was further
elucidated in Anil Kumar Gupta (Supra) and authoritatively
applied in Rajesh Kumar Daria (Supra).
20. More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Federation
38
of the Blind (Supra) held that reservation for persons with
disabilities must be computed on the basis of total cadre strength
and implemented in a manner that ensures effective
representation. Subsequently, in Sourav Yadav (Supra), the
Court reiterated the doctrine of interlocking reservations and
clarified the sequencing principle; first fill open merit seats;
thereafter fill vertical reserved categories; and finally adjust
horizontal reservations within each vertical category.
21. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid binding precedents, the action
of the Commission does not suffer from illegality. The material
placed on record demonstrates that the Commission followed a
three-layered methodology i.e., first applying vertical reservations
as per the Recruitment Rules; second adjusting horizontal
reservation for women within each vertical category; and third
interlocking horizontal reservation for Persons with Disabilities
across categories proportionately. The petitioners' grievance
essentially arises from the carry-forward mechanism when eligible
PwD candidates were not available to the full extent of notified
vacancies. However, Section 34(2) of the 2016 Act expressly
contemplates carry forward of unfilled vacancies. The proportional
adjustment adopted by the Commission ensured that no single
vertical category was disproportionately affected.
22. The argument that Clause 17.6 was applied retrospectively and
thereby altered the rules of the game is also devoid of merit. The
39
selection criteria, eligibility conditions, written examination scheme
and interview structure remained unchanged. Clause 17.6 merely
clarified the method of adjustment of horizontal reservation and
carry forward in conformity with statutory mandate. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir,
reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 has held that a candidate who
participates in a selection process without demur cannot, after
being unsuccessful, turn around and challenge the procedure. It
was held as under :
"9. Before dealing with this contention,
we must keep in view the salient fact
that the petitioners as well as the
contesting successful candidates being
respondents concerned herein, were all
found eligible in the light of marks
obtained in the written test, to be eligible
to be called for oral interview. Up to this
stage there is no dispute between the
parties. The petitioners also appeared at
the oral interview conducted by the
Members concerned of the Commission
who interviewed the petitioners as well
as the contesting respondents
concerned. Thus the petitioners took a
chance to get themselves selected at
the said oral interview. Only because
they did not find themselves to have
emerged successful as a result of their
combined performance both at written
test and oral interview, they have filed
this petition. It is now well settled that if
a candidate takes a calculated chance
and appears at the interview, then, only
because the result of the interview is not
palatable to him, he cannot turn round
and subsequently contend that the
40
process of interview was unfair or the
Selection Committee was not properly
constituted. In the case of Om Prakash
Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986
Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644 :
AIR 1986 SC 1043] it has been clearly
laid down by a Bench of three learned
Judges of this Court that when the
petitioner appeared at the examination
without protest and when he found that
he would not succeed in examination he
filed a petition challenging the said
examination, the High Court should not
have granted any relief to such a
petitioner."
23. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Airport Authority of
India and Others Vs. Sham Krishna B and Others, reported in
2026 SCC OnLine SC 87 has held as under :
"30. There are mainly two-fold purposes
of maintaining reservation register or
roster. Firstly, to ascertain that any given
point of time, the number of employees
in a cadre belonging to a particular
category (SC, ST and OBC) does not
exceed their lawful quota in the cadre.
The second purpose is to determine the
number of posts in all the categories
(UR, SC, ST and OBC) which is vacant
for future recruitments. Therefore, the
reservation roster is not used to make
selections during the recruitment
process, but only to define number of
vacant posts for advertising for
recruitment. However, since reservation
register or roster defines the quota
available for recruitment, it can be used
to decide who deserves selection and
who does not deserve selection on
account of a concerned category quota
41
being filled by more meritorious
candidates in the category available for
the concerned candidate.
31. The Appellant Authority has justified
its stand in shifting reserve category
candidates towards the list of
unreserved category candidates as they
have obtained marks more than the
candidates belonging to unreserved
category or at par with the candidates
belonging to unreserved category
candidates.
32. The issue in respect of migration of
reserved category candidates who has
not availed any concession or relaxation
has been considered in detailed by this
Court in Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat
Yadav in Civil Appeal No. 14112 of 2024
decided on 19.12.2025, wherein this
Court after taking into account all the
judgments on the subject has held that a
candidate belonging to reserve category
who has scored higher marks than the
cut off marks for the General Category
candidates has to be treated as having
qualified against an open unreserved
vacant post. This Court in the aforesaid
case in paragraph 58 to 74 as held as
under:
58. We begin our observations,
analysis and ruling on migration by
refreshing our memory with certain
well-established principles in
relation to affirmative action under
our Constitution. It is well-settled
that the concept of 'equality before
law' ingrained in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India contemplates,
inter alia, elimination of
inequalities in status, facilities and
opportunities not only amongst
42
individuals but also amongst
groups of people and is aimed at
securing the educational and
economic interests of the weaker
sections of the society and to
protect them from social injustice
and exploitation. The equal
protection clause urges affirmative
action for those who are placed
unequally. Affirmative action is
also recognised by Article 16.
Then again, Article 335 thereof
provides for special consideration
in the matter of claims of the
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes for public employment. The
entire field of law relating to
affirmative action is so well
occupied by authoritative
decisions that we consider it
unnecessary to burden this
judgment by referring to the same.
What particularly concerns us in
these appeals is not a sterile
invocation of formal legal equality,
but an assessment of the real-
world consequences flowing from
the principle of equality. The focus,
therefore, must be on outcomes as
much as on rules.
59. Indra Sawhney (supra)
explained the principles of
reservation. Hon'ble B.P. Jeevan
Reddy, J. (as His Lordship then
was) declared, inter alia, that
where a vertical reservation is
made in favour of a backward
class, the candidates in this
category may compete for open or
general category and that if they
are appointed on merit in the open
or general category, their number
43
will not be counted against the
backward class category and, as
such, it cannot be considered that
the vertical reservations have
been filled up to the extent
candidates of this category have
migrated to the open category on
merit.
60. In Saurav Yadav (supra),
Hon'ble S. Ravindra Bhat, J. in His
Lordship's supplementing opinion
outlined the features of vertical
and horizontal reservation as
follows:
59. The features of vertical
reservations are:
59.1. They cannot be filled by the
open category, or categories of
candidates other than those
specified and have to be filled by
candidates of the social category
concerned only (SC/ST/OBC).
59.2. Mobility ("migration") from
the reserved (specified category)
to the unreserved (open category)
slot is possible, based on
meritorious performance.
59.3. In case of migration from
reserved to open category, the
vacancy in the reserved category
should be filled by another person
from the same specified category,
lower in rank.
59.4. If the vacancies cannot be
filled by the specified categories
due to shortfall of candidates, the
vacancies are to be "carried
forward" or dealt with appropriately
by rules.
44
60. Horizontal reservations on the
other hand, by their nature, are not
inviolate pools or carved in stone.
They are premised on their
overlaps and are "interlocking"
reservations. As a sequel, they are
to be calculated concurrently and
along with the inviolate "vertical"
(or "social") reservation quotas, by
application of the various steps
laid out with clarity in para 21.3 of
Lalit, J.'s judgment. They cannot
be carried forward. The first rule
that applies to filling horizontal
reservation quotas is one of
adjustment i.e. examining whether
on merit any of the horizontal
categories are adjusted in the
merit list in the open category, and
then, in the quota for such
horizontal category within the
particular specified/social
reservation.
61. The open category is not a
"quota", but rather available to all
women and men alike. ...".
61. The above observations were
followed by His Lordship's
observation, found almost at the
end of the opinion, that the "open
category is open to all, and the
only condition for a candidate to
be shown in it is merit, regardless
of whether reservation benefit of
either type is available to her or
him.". The same have a profound
meaning, and needs to be
translated into action without being
unnecessarily bothered by a term
like 'migration'.
62. Drawing inspiration from the
45
guiding light provided by Indra
Sawhney (supra) and Saurav
Yadav (supra), we hold that the
word 'open' connotes nothing but
'open', meaning thereby that
vacant posts which are sought to
be filled by earmarking it as 'open'
do not fall in any category. One
does find categories like 'open' or
'unreserved' or 'general' being
widely used in course of
recruitment drives but they are
meant to signify the
open/unreserved vacant posts on
which any suitable candidate can
be appointed, regardless of the
caste/tribe/class/gender of such
candidate. For all intents and
purposes, the vacancies on posts
which are notified/advertised as
open or unreserved or general, as
the terms suggest, are not
reserved for any
caste/tribe/class/gender and are,
thus, open to all notwithstanding
that a cross-section of society can
also compete for appointment on
vacant posts which are 'reserved' -
vertical or horizontal - as
mentioned in the
notification/advertisement.
63. Now, turning to the dictionary
meaning of the word 'migration',
what we find is that the same
typically refers to the act of moving
from one place to another, often
involving a change of residence or
location. This can apply to various
contexts like human migration,
animal migration, data migration,
etc. In general, migration involves
a change of location, often with the
46
intention of settling or establishing
a new presence in the new
location.
64. In the context of reservation in
public employment, the word
'migration' refers to a candidate
claiming benefits or entitlements.
The word is used in, at least, two
scenarios.
65. Scenario 1 is "Inter-State
Reservation Migration" envisaging
a portability of reservation
benefits. Since we are not
concerned with a scenario 1 case,
we make no observation except
noting two decisions of this Court.
The first is Action Committee v.
Union of India3 where it has been
held by a Constitution Bench that
a person belonging to Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe in relation
to his original State, of which he is
a permanent or ordinary resident,
cannot be deemed to be so in
relation to any other State on his
migration to that State for the
purpose of employment,
education, etc. The second is Uttar
Pradesh Public Service
Commission v. Sanjay Kumar
Singh holding that if a person
certified as Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe in one
State migrates to another State,
then he would not be entitled to
the benefit available to Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe in the State
to which he has migrated unless
he belongs to the Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe in that
State.
47
66. Scenario 2, with which we are
concerned, occurs when there is a
"Merit Induced Shift". Although this
shift is largely referred to as
migration, we find in Saurav Yadav
(supra) Hon'ble Ravindra Bhat, J.
explaining the term as adjustment
of a reserve category candidate in
the unreserved category based on
his/her merit.
67. Here, we do not see reason to
agree with Mr. Gupta that any shift
or adjustment, or even migration
as he contends, as such is
required where a candidate, who
is also otherwise entitled to
compete and be selected for a
reserved vacant post, happens to
outscore, outperform and outshine
not only reserved candidates but
also general candidates and
figures at the top of the list of
successful candidates prepared
after a qualifying/preliminary
examination (for
screening/shortlisting) solely by
dint of the marks secured by
him/her in such examination
(without availing any
concession/relaxation) thereby
entitling him/her to participate in
the second tier of a further
suitability test. Such a meritorious
candidate, notwithstanding that
he/she belongs to a reserved
category, be it Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe or Other
Backward Class, must of necessity
(arising out of the concept of
equality before law and equal
protection of the laws in Article 14,
and extended to Article 16 in
matters of public employment) be
treated as a candidate who has
competed for the 'unreserved'
category and not the 'reserved'
category, thereby obviating the
need for any 'migration' or, so to
say, shift or adjustment.
68. In a two-tier process, as in the
present case, we wish to illustrate
how, generally, the exercise of
screening/short-listing of
candidates (belonging to
General/Open, Scheduled Caste
or Scheduled Tribe or Other
Backward Class, etc., categories)
with five times the number of
vacancies in each category, who
would literally be gaining the 'pass'
to reach the second tier to
participate in the typewriting test
on computer can be conducted
without complaints of unfairness
and nontransparency in the
process. Say, 100 vacancies in the
General/Open category are
notified and a similar number for
the reserved categories is also
notified. Five times the number of
vacancies would mean not more
than 500 candidates can be
screened/shortlisted for the
General/Open category. At the
outset, based on the performance
of the candidates who take the
written test, the recruiting authority
has to screen/short-list the
candidates to be included in the
General/Open category and
subsequently for reserved
categories. Judicial notice can be
taken that this exercise is often
facilitated by preparing a
broadsheet, also called a short-list,
containing names of all the
candidates (who acquit
themselves successfully in the
written test). For the preparation of
the short-list for the General/Open
category, candidates are first
arranged strictly in descending
order of merit and, thereafter,
candidates falling short of the cut-
off for such category figure in
descending order of merit
according to their respective
reservation category in separate
short-lists. If any candidate, say
'C', being the member of a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe or Other Backward Class,
outscores the candidates not
belonging to any reserved
category in the written test, he/she
shall be included in the short-list
for the General/Open category. At
this stage, there is no question of
any migration; merit is the only
criterion amongst all candidates
who have to be seen as belonging
to General/Open category. Once
'C' gains the 'pass' for the second-
tier process and qualifies in the
typewriting test on computer
obtaining marks in excess of the
requisite marks, his/her marks
obtained in such test would be
required to be added to the marks
obtained in the written test. Once
again, a broad-sheet has to be
prepared based on cumulative
scores containing names of all the
candidates in order of highest to
lowest marks with the more
meritorious candidates, obviously,
figuring at the top. Preparation of
this broad-sheet is a handy tool for
drawing up the final merit list of
candidates. From the broad-sheet,
names of candidates drawn up in
order of merit with candidates
ranked according to their marks in
descending order, commonly
called the Combined Merit List,
ought to reflect where each one of
the aspiring candidates stand on
merit. If 'C' figures within the first
100 candidates in order of merit,
i.e., the number of vacant posts for
the General/Open category,
he/she shall be counted as a
General/Open candidate for the
purpose of appointment. Here too,
there is no question of migration
for the reason we have already
indicated above, i.e., merit being
the only criterion and not
caste/tribe/gender, etc. If 'C' does
not figure in the first 100
candidates and whilst preparing
the merit list of reserved category
candidates it is found that he/she
figures within the specified number
of vacancies in the reserved
category to which he/she belongs
and which can be filled up by
appointing him/her, he/she ought
to be counted as a candidate of
such reserved category for
appointment. If 'C' fails to figure in
the merit list for the reserved
category list as well, question of
his/her appointment would not
arise.
69. We, however, sound a note of
caution that our observations
above are relatable to the
selection process of the kind under
consideration. It has not been
shown with reference to the
recruitment rules that the same
ordain otherwise. If, at all, the
recruitment rules governing any
selection process ordain otherwise
than what is observed above,
obviously the recruitment rules
would have precedence subject to
the condition that such rule passes
the test of constitutionality.
70. Reverting to the appeals under
consideration, we see no reason
to say that there has been a
'migration', in the sense of either
an adjustment or a shift being
made. At the time of
screening/short-listing of
candidates based on their
performance in the qualifying
examination and even thereafter,
initially all the aspiring candidates
including the reserved candidates
should be seen as General/Open
candidates. If such a candidate,
notwithstanding that he/she
belongs to a reserved category
maintains excellence in standard
even in the second tier of
examination (typewriting test, in
this case), he/she would cease to
be treated as a candidate
belonging to any category and
entitled to treatment as a
candidate seeking appointment on
a vacant post which is categorised
as General/Open. Should there be
a decline in performance in the
second tier test pushing out the
candidate from the zone of
consideration for appointment on
posts which are open or
unreserved or general but not
beyond the zone for the reserved
vacant posts, it is necessary to
regard him/her as a candidate
belonging to the reserved category
to which he/she belongs, thereby
paving the way for him/her to
stake a claim for consideration for
appointment on an appropriate
reserved vacant post.
71. In the milieu of facts, none of
the petitioning candidates has
been shown to have availed of any
concession/relaxation. No law -
either rule or executive instruction
- has been shown which prevented
the High Court from treating the
reserved candidates as
General/Open candidates once it
transpired that they outshone the
latter. Question of any migration or
deriving twin benefits of migration
did not and could not arise in the
circumstances.
72. If we accept the proposition
advanced by the appellants, it
would not only have a detrimental
impact on candidates from the
disadvantaged sections but also
erode the principles enshrined in
the Constitution.
73. Now, turning to Chattar Singh
(supra) which was heavily relied
on by the appellants, we have to
record that the ratio laid down
therein must be appreciated in its
proper context. In that case, the
scheme of examination clearly
provided that the marks obtained
in the preliminary examination
would not be considered for the
determination of final merit. The
rule therein, appearing from
paragraph 5 of the decision, read
as follows:
5. Rule 13 of the Rules
prescribes the mode of conducting
preliminary as well as Main
Examination. It reads as under:
"13. Scheme of Examination,
personality and viva voce test.--
The competitive examination shall
be conducted by the Commission
in two stages, i.e., Preliminary
Examination and Main
Examination as per the scheme
specified in Schedule III. The
marks obtained in the Preliminary
Examination by the candidates,
who are declared qualified for
admission to the Main
Examination will not be counted
for determining their final order of
merit..."
(emphasis ours)
It is in view of this rule that
this Court held that the claim of
reserved category candidates to
be accommodated in the open
category on the basis of marks
obtained will be determined at the
final stage. We find no reason to
differ from that principle. However,
the facts of the present case stand
on a distinct footing. First, the
main written examination here is
not a mere preliminary/screening
test but an integral and
substantive component of the
selection process, carrying 300
marks out of a total of 400 -
constituting 75% of the final
assessment. Its weight and
determinative value distinguish it
from the limited preliminary stage
examination contemplated in
Chattar Singh (supra), thereby
rendering that ratio inapplicable to
the present factual matrix.
Secondly, the inclusion of a
reserved category candidate in the
open merit list at the stage of
shortlisting cannot be equated with
'migration', for no benefit or
concession of reservation is
availed. Such inclusion is purely
merit-based and, therefore, stands
on a plane distinct from the
concept of 'migration' as
addressed in Chattar Singh
(supra).
74. Before we part, we find it
necessary to enter a caveat. A
situation could arise, if the
aforesaid principles were applied,
of a reserved category candidate
based on his/her performance
outshining General/Open
candidates and figuring in the
General merit list, but finding the
options to be limited. He/she may,
as a consequence of being
counted as a General candidate,
lose out on a preferred service or
a preferred post because the
same is reserved for a reserved
category candidate. Should such
an eventuality occur, the same is
bound to breed dissatisfaction,
disappointment and displeasure
which are not in the interests of
public service. After all, fairness
matters even in public
employment. Where adjustment
against the unreserved category
would result in a more meritorious
reserved category candidate being
displaced in favour of a less
meritorious candidate within the
same category for a preferred
service or a preferred post within
the reserved quota, the former
must be permitted to be
considered against the
service/post in the reserved quota.
This would ensure merit being
preserved both across categories
and within them, and that
reservation functions as a means
of inclusion rather than an
instrument of disadvantage. The
approach adopted by us in holding
so is consistent with the view
expressed by this Court,
encapsulated in paragraph 24.1 of
Alok Kumar Pandit (supra). We
may also mention here that prior to
the view expressed in Alok Kumar
Pandit (supra), the High Court at
Calcutta in a somewhat like
situation took the same view in
Mukul Biswas v. State of West
Bengal".
33. In the considered opinion of this
Court, the controversy involved in the
present case is no longer res integra. It
is now a settled proposition of law that a
candidate belonging to reserve category
who has scored marks higher than the
cut off marks for the General Category is
to be treated as having qualified against
an open or unreserved vacant post. In
the present case, no concession or
relaxation was extended to the reserve
category candidates who have been
appointed on their own merit against the
posts meant for the General Category
candidates as they have scored more
marks than the General Category
candidates in the selection process. The
facts of the case further makes it clear
that all the vacancies notified for
unreserved category i.e. 122 posts were
filled up based upon the marks scored
by candidates in the process of selection
on their own merit and, therefore, the
Appellant Authority were justified in
migrating the candidates belonging to
reserve category to the unreserved list
on the basis of their own merit as they
have scored higher marks than the
General category candidates."
24. The petitioners have painstakingly placed numerical charts to
contend that certain Unreserved or OBC vacancies remained
unfilled while PwD candidates from other vertical categories were
adjusted. However, such adjustments are inherent in the doctrine
of horizontal reservation. As clarified in Rajesh Kumar Daria
(supra), horizontal reservation cuts across vertical categories and
adjustments are to be made by deleting corresponding candidates
from the bottom of the concerned vertical list. The mere fact that
some vacancies appear unfilled at an intermediate stage does not
establish distortion unless it is shown that the final vertical
percentages were breached. No such breach has been
demonstrated.
25. The contention that reservation for PwD must be calculated only
on cadre strength and not on advertised vacancies is
misconceived in the present factual context. The cadre strength
was 3855 posts; however, the recruitment was confined to 1384
advertised vacancies. The Commission ensured that the total
reservation for PwD within the cadre did not fall below the
statutory minimum and proportionately adjusted the current
recruitment to meet backlog and current reservation requirements.
This approach is consistent with the mandate in National
Federation of the Blind (supra).
26. The grievance regarding non-publication of detailed merit lists and
waiting lists also does not warrant interference. The record
indicates that interim orders in connected matters required certain
posts to be kept vacant, and publication of a comprehensive merit
list at that stage could have led to complications affecting those
proceedings. Moreover, the petitioners have not demonstrated
prejudice by establishing that they secured higher marks than the
last selected candidate in the relevant adjusted category.
Transparency cannot be equated with a right to invalidate a
selection otherwise conducted in accordance with law.
27. The challenge to individual appointments in W.P.S. No. 3636/2022
is entirely consequential. Once the selection list withstands
judicial scrutiny, the appointment order issued pursuant thereto
cannot be independently assailed. The petitioners have not
established mala fides, arbitrariness or violation of statutory
provisions in the issuance of appointment orders.
28. It is trite that judicial review in matters of public recruitment is
limited. Courts do not sit as appellate authorities over selection
bodies. Interference is warranted only when there is patent
illegality, violation of statutory rules, or demonstrable arbitrariness
infringing Articles 14 and 16. The present case discloses no such
infirmity.
29. The entire edifice of the petitioners' case rests upon a
misapprehension of how horizontal reservation operates in
conjunction with vertical reservation. The Commission has
adhered to the interlocking principle, preserved the vertical
reservation matrix, implemented carry forward in accordance with
statutory prescription, and ensured compliance with constitutional
norms. The amendment introducing Clause 17.6 cannot be said to
be ultra vires Articles 309 or 320, as it merely regulates
procedural aspects of implementation without altering substantive
recruitment rules.
30. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners have failed
to establish that any candidate less meritorious within the same
adjusted category has been selected in preference to them, or
that the constitutional scheme of reservation has been violated.
The grievance is essentially speculative and founded upon an
erroneous interpretation of binding precedents.
31. For all the reasons aforesaid, this Court holds that the III
Amendment Notification dated 19.03.2021 inserting Clause 17.6
in the Rules of Procedure, 2014 is constitutionally valid; the final
selection lists dated 26.06.2021, 06.07.2021 and 29.07.2021 for
the subjects of Chemistry, Commerce and Physics respectively
have been prepared in accordance with law; and the
consequential appointment order dated 21.01.2022 does not
suffer from any legal infirmity.
32. Consequently, all four writ petitions, namely W.P.S. No.
5102/2021, W.P.S. No. 5117/2021, W.P.S. No. 5350/2021 and
W.P.S. No. 3636/2022, are hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge Judge
Shayna
The date when The date when The date when the judgment is
the judgment is the judgment is uploaded on the website
reserved pronounced
Operative Full
10.02.2026 13.03.2026 13.03.2026 13.03.2026
Head Note
Judicial review in matters of public recruitment is limited and courts do
not sit as appellate authorities over the decisions of selection bodies.
Where the Commission has correctly applied the interlocking principle
of horizontal and vertical reservations along with the carry-forward rule,
the selection process cannot be faulted. The amendment introducing
Clause 17.6 being procedural in nature cannot be held ultra vires
Articles 309 or 320.
