In a significant ruling concerning public employment in the district judiciary, the High Court of Chhattisgarh, presided over by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, held that recruiting authorities can resort to a shortlisting procedure to filter candidates when faced with a disproportionate number of applications, even if there is no statutory rule providing for shortlisting or any mention of it in the recruitment advertisement. Upholding the screening mechanism adopted across various district courts, the Court held that meeting minimum educational eligibility criteria does not confer an indefeasible right on an applicant to be called for every subsequent stage of a selection process, and accordingly dismissed the writ petitions challenging the prescription of graduation-percentage cut-offs.
Background of the Case
The proceedings arose from two connected writ petitions challenging the prescription and application of graduation-percentage screening benchmarks to shortlist candidates prior to the written examination in district judiciary recruitment drives.
In the first petition (Writ Petition (S) No. 7303 of 2026), petitioner Anil Kumar challenged the graduation-percentage screening criterion imposed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Raipur, under Advertisement No. 2815/two-11-12/2015 dated 24.07.2026 for recruitment to the posts of Stenographer Grade-3. The petitioner also questioned the criteria stipulated by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, under Advertisement No. 1701/two-11-8/2026 dated 22.07.2026 (as amended by Amended Advertisement No. 1789/two-11-8/2026 dated 03.08.2026) for Stenographer Grade-3 (Hindi) and Assistant Grade-3 posts.
In the second petition (Writ Petition (S) No. 7304 of 2026), petitioner Sudhir Toppo contested the graduation-percentage criteria prescribed for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Grade-3 at Mungeli under Advertisement No. 390/two-12-4/2023 dated 22.07.2026, as well as Assistant Grade-3 and Peon posts at Surguja under Advertisement No. 2234/two-11-1/2025 dated 22.07.2026 (as amended on 24.07.2026).
Both petitioners asserted that the impugned shortlisting benchmarks were not traceable to the governing statutory framework—the Chhattisgarh District Judiciary Establishment (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Employees Rules, 2023.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that because the applicants possessed the prescribed educational qualifications and had duly applied pursuant to the advertisements, introducing an additional graduation-percentage criterion impermissibly restricted their opportunity to participate. The petitioners argued that once an applicant fulfills the minimum eligibility conditions, they ought to be permitted to appear in the written examination, with comparative merit being assessed solely on exam performance. They further argued that the respondents were obligated to follow a uniform selection procedure and referred to recruitment processes conducted in Bilaspur, Kanker, and Korba.
Opposing the petitions, counsel representing the respondent judicial establishments submitted that the recruitment processes strictly conformed to the applicable statutory rules. The respondents contended that possessing minimum educational qualifications does not confer an absolute or vested right to appear in the written test irrespective of a lawful shortlisting procedure.
Highlighting administrative necessities, the respondents submitted that in view of the substantial volume of applications received in comparison to the advertised vacancies, adopting an objective and manageable screening method was essential to conduct the selection in an orderly and expeditious manner. Relying on Rules 6, 8, and Rule 16(3) of the Chhattisgarh District Judiciary Establishment Rules, 2023, along with recruitment permission granted via a memorandum dated 15.07.2026 by the Registrar General of the High Court, the respondents denied all allegations of arbitrariness or discrimination.
Court’s Analysis and Precedents
Formulating the primary question, Justice Guru examined whether a screening criterion operating over and above the minimum educational qualification can be deemed arbitrary or contrary to recruitment rules.
Distinguishing between basic eligibility to apply and lawful shortlisting criteria, the Court observed:
“The fulfilment of the minimum eligibility qualification ordinarily enables a candidate to be considered in accordance with the applicable recruitment conditions. It does not, by itself, confer an indefeasible right to be called for every stage of the selection process, irrespective of the number of applicants, the number of vacancies and a lawful method of shortlisting. Where the number of applicants is disproportionately large in comparison with the number of vacancies, the selection authority may adopt an objective and rational criterion for shortlisting candidates. Such a criterion must bear a reasonable relationship to the requirements of the selection process, must not be arbitrary or discriminatory, and must be applied uniformly to candidates similarly situated.”
The High Court placed strong reliance on the Supreme Court ruling in B. Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi v. Union of India (2008), which cited M.P. Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar and Govt. of A.P. v. P. Dilip Kumar. The Court noted that the Supreme Court established that shortlisting is a practical via-media when applications are disproportionately high:
“Even if there is no rule providing for shortlisting nor any mention of it in the advertisement calling for applications for the post, the selection body can resort to a shortlisting procedure if there are a large number of eligible candidates who apply and it is not possible for the authority to interview all of them.”
The Court reiterated the two essential conditions recognized in B. Ramakichenin: that shortlisting must rest on a rational and objective basis, and if a specific method is prescribed by the applicable rules or advertisement, that method alone must be followed.
Applying these principles, Justice Guru noted that the petitioners failed to establish that the criterion was applied selectively, that similarly situated candidates were treated differently, or that the criterion was devised to favour any particular applicant. Rejecting the petitioners’ insistence on direct participation in the written exam and their reliance on selections in Bilaspur, Kanker, and Korba, the Court observed:
“The Court cannot substitute a preferred method of selection for the method lawfully adopted by the competent authority merely because the former may be more favourable to a particular candidate.”
The Court clarified that while the power to shortlist is not unfettered and cannot breach statutory rules, the authority to adopt a reasonable shortlisting mechanism cannot be denied merely because an applicant possesses the minimum educational qualification.
The Decision
Finding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any violation of the governing recruitment rules, arbitrariness, or discrimination, the High Court held that there was no ground to interfere with the recruitment advertisements or the shortlisting mechanism.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed both writ petitions and disposed of all pending applications.
Case Title: Anil Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Case No.: WPS No. 7303 of 2026 and WPS No. 7304 of 2026
Bench: Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Date: 12/10/2026
