The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has set aside the appointment of a selected candidate for a contractual post, ruling that the recruitment process was marred by arbitrary actions. The Court held that authorities cannot deduct marks or reject a candidate’s experience certificate for being from a private institute when the original advertisement did not specify a requirement for government or semi-government experience. The Court directed the authorities to restore the petitioner’s marks and consider him for the appointment based on the original merit list.
Background of the Case
On March 6, 2023, the Deputy Director of Agriculture-cum-Project Manager, WCDC, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, issued an advertisement to fill one unreserved contractual post of Secretary in the Tatapani Micro Watershed Committee.
The petitioner, Satyam Gupta, applied for the post and submitted his educational documents alongside an experience certificate from a private institute, Mirror Academy Computer Education Centre. Following the scrutiny of applications, the authorities published an initial merit list of three candidates. The petitioner was placed at serial number one, having secured the highest aggregate of 67.9 marks, which included marks awarded for his experience.
Despite multiple rounds of document verification, the final appointment for the Tatapani committee was surprisingly kept under consideration. Subsequently, a new select list was published where a new candidate, Dilip Kumar Ekka (Respondent No. 4)—who was entirely absent from the initial top-three merit list—was declared selected with 65.11 marks. The petitioner was pushed to the waiting list with his score reduced to 62.9 marks after his experience marks were deducted. Aggrieved by this sudden exclusion, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the sudden inclusion of Respondent No. 4 in the final select list was illegal and arbitrary, especially since he did not even feature in the initial merit list of three candidates. The petitioner sought the restoration of his name to the top of the merit list and the issuance of his appointment order.
The State opposed the petition, contending that the appointment strictly followed the due process of law. The State justified the deduction of the petitioner’s experience marks by claiming his certificate was from a private institute, whereas it ought to have been from a Government or Semi-Government institute. Without the experience marks, the petitioner’s total fell to 62.9, making Respondent No. 4 the higher scorer with 65.11 marks.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, presiding over the single-judge bench, examined the selection process and found glaring irregularities. The Court observed that Respondent No. 4 was not in the picture when the initial merit list was prepared.
Noting the State’s failure to explain this sudden entry, the Court observed: “The aforementioned facts prima facie shows that private respondent Dilip Kumar Ekka has been selected by adopting illegal means and therefore, selection of the private respondent would not be sustainable.”
Furthermore, the Court scrutinized the advertisement’s terms and rejected the State’s defense regarding the experience certificate. The Court noted: “There is no specific mention as to experience should be of Govt. or Semi-Govt. Institution… As there is no requirement under the advertisement that the experience certificate should be of Govt/semi-govt institute only, the objection raised by the respondent for not considering the experience certificate submitted by petitioner is not sustainable.”
To support its reasoning on the inviolability of recruitment rules, the Court cited two key Supreme Court judgments:
- Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court and Ors. (2024 INSC 847): The Court reiterated the Supreme Court’s ruling that, “Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit.”
- Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Ors. ((2011) 12 SCC 85): The Court emphasized that “There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved… Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, ruling that the 5 marks previously awarded to the petitioner for his experience must be added back, restoring his aggregate to 67.9 marks.
The Court explicitly set aside the selection of Respondent No. 4, stating that his direct inclusion in the select list lacked explanation and was unsustainable. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s candidature based on the initial merit list dated August 14, 2024, publish the select list accordingly, and issue the appointment order. No order as to costs was made.
- Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
- Case Number: WPS No. 10253 of 2025
