High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR AFR Reserved for orders on : 02.05.2025 Order passed on 29.07.2025 WPS No. 2311 of 2024 1 - Amit Kumar Bharadwaj S/o Shri Tularam Bharadwaj, Aged About 27 Years R/o Room No. B-101, Joy Residency, Kududand Road, Mangla, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District-Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 6880 of 2024 1 - Ananya Agrawal D/o Shri Ravi Kumar Agrawal Aged About 27 Years R/o Kailash Medical Store, Main Road Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492015 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Chairman, Shankar Nagar Road, Bhaghat Singh Square, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 6026 of 2024 1 - Sahil S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Sonwani Aged About 27 Years R/o 103 Banyan Housing Board Colony, Shadani Darbar, Boriya Kala, Mana-Camp, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 6036 of 2024 1 - Nitesh S/o Late Shri Rajesh Sonwani Aged About 34 Years R/o Infront Of Null Mill, Post- Madeli, Null Sarbada, Tehsil Bakhra, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 5704 of 2024 1 - Sakshi Dhruw S/o Shri K.L. Dhruw, Aged About 27 Years R/o 39/2, Street 6a, Maitri Nagar, Risali, Civic Centre Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of General 1 - Administration, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Under Secretary, General Administration Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector - 19, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 5706 of 2024 1 - Pragya Nayak D/o Shri Mahesh Kumar Nayak Aged About 26 Years R/o S.R. M.I.G. 268, Sec-2, D.D.U. Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of General 1 - Administration, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Under Secretary General Administration Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commissione Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 5743 of 2024 1 - Bhumika Katiyar W/o Shri Shashank Goyal Aged About 31 Years R/o X-116, A-1, Swarnabhoomi, Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Chairman, North Block, Sector 19, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Chairman, North Block, Sector 19, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 5742 of 2024 1 - Shashank Goyal S/o Shri Shrawan Kumar Goyal Aged About 31 Years R/o X- 116, A-1, Swarnabhoomi, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Chairman, North Block, Sector 19, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 5411 of 2024 1 - Ms. Khushboo Bizoara D/o Mr. Nand Kishore Bizoara Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 2490/43, Aminpara, Purani Basti, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh – 492002 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administrative Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh – 492002 3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Controller Of Examination North Block, Sector-19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 WPS No. 577 of 2024 --- Respondent(s) 1 - Rahul Kumar Patel S/o Mangalchanran Patel Aged About 29 Years R/o House No. 304/k, Near Shankar Munda Talab, Block Colony, Saraipali, P.S. And Tehsil - Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Principal Secretary Department Of Home And Jail Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chhattisgarh Prison And Correctional Services Through The Director General, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 2645 of 2024 1 - Neha Xalxo D/o Shri Amrit Kumar Xalxo, Aged About 32 Years R/o- Block-A, Rose 240, Talpuri, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, General Administration Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 492015 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through- Its Chairman, Shankar Nagar Road, Bhaghat Singh Square, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 2528 of 2024 1 - Rana Vijay S/o Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh Aged About 25 Years Present R/o Behind S. P. Office, Nehru Ward, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Under Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 3 - Public Service Commission Through Chairman, Public Service Commission, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 2610 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
1 - Mahendra Kumar Sidar, S/o Shri Murlidhar Sidar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Katahardi, Post- Katahardi, Tehsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 2469 of 2024 1 - Princee Tamboli D/o Shri Guljarilal Tamboli, Aged About 28 Years R/o- Matrika Vihar, Near Danteshwari Temple, Gopiyapara, Puranibasti, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur ( C.G.). ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur ( C.G.). 2 - Chhttisgarh Public Service Commission Through- Its Secretary, North Block, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur ( C.G.). --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 2799 of 2024 1 - Nikhil Xalxo S/o Shri Amrit Kumar Xalxo, Aged About 30 Years R/o Block-A, Rose 240, Talpuri, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Chairman, Shankar Nagar Road, Bhaghat Singh Square, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commmission, Through Its Chairman, Shankar Nagar Road, Bhaghat Singh Square, Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 2048 of 2024 6 1 - Shrikant Dev Shukla S/o A.K. Shukla Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Komakhan, Dist. Mahasamund, C.G. 2 - Yatindra Burman S/o Amarchand Burman Aged About 28 Years R/o B-2, Alka Avenue, Uslapur, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. 3 - Mrinmayee Shukla D/o Shri Harbansh Shukla Aged About 31 Years R/o H 2/13, Narmada Nagar, Gaurav Path, Mangla Chowk, Civil Line, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. 4 - Vibhas Nagdeve S/o Shri Sanju Nagdeve Aged About 26 Years R/o Shri Shyam Residency, Ward No. -2, Bajrangpur Nawagaon, Rajnandgaon, Dist. Rajnandgaon, C.G. 5 - Shashwat Mishra S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Mishra Aged About 26 Years R/o Near Vishnu Mandir, Purani Basti Janjgir, Dist.- Janjgir Champa, C.G. 6 - Rahul Sharma S/o Shri R.K. Sharma Aged About 29 Years R/o House No. 353, Village-Jaroud, Tahsil Simga, Dist. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 7 - Ashesh Chandra Sharma S/o Shri R.S. Sharma Aged About 35 Years R/o Ram Vihar, Near Kuber Kunj, Seepat Road, Lingyadih, Sarkanda, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. 8 - Sonal Yadav S/o Shri S.K. Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o H. No. 153, J.P. Vihar Colony, Mangla Bilaspur, Dist.-Bilaspur, C.G. 9 - Vinay Kashyap S/o Shri Arun Kashyap Aged About 27 Years R/o H. No. 166, Raja Colony Ranigaon, Lormi, Dist. Mungeli, C.G. 10 - Rajesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri C.K. Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Fekari, Tahsil Patan, Dist. Durg, C.G. 11 - Shailendra Anant S/o Shri Patiram Anant Aged About 28 Years R/o H. No. 32, Banjinpara, Mahrapara, Jute Mill Road, Raigarh, Dist. Raigarh, C.G. 12 - Yamini Banjare D/o Shri O.P. Banjare Aged About 32 Years R/o Plot No. 432/4, Street No. 6, Ashish Nagar (West), Risali, Bhilai, Dist. Durg, C.G. 13 - Vinod Kumar Banjare S/o Shri M. R. Banjare Aged About 28 Years R/o H. No. 72, Basti Para, Gandhi Gram, Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, Dist. Raipur, C.G. 14 - Rajeev Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Nagarda, Tahsil Naya Baradwar, Sakti, Dist. Sakti, C.G. 15 - Vinayak Singh S/o Shri Premlal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Anchhidongari, Post-Dudhawa, Kanker, Dist.- Kanker. C.G. 16 - Mukesh Kumar Painkra S/o Shri Tejraj Sai Aged About 27 Years R/o H. No. 163, Village- Lukkhi, Tahsil Manora, Dist. Jashpur, C.G. 17 - Bhujendra Singh S/o Shri Muneshwar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Radhapur, Post-Pratapgarh, Tahsil-Sitapur, Dist. Surguja, C.G. 18 - Pradeep Bhagat S/o Shri B.L. Bhagat Aged About 33 Years R/o H. No. 213, Darbari Toli, Jashpur Nagar, Dist. Jashpur, C.G. 19 - Pushpendra S/o Shri Amiya Lal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Baya, H. No. - 159, Ward No. 7, Ramsagarpara, Kasdol, Dist. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, C.G. 20 - Kamini Dhurve D/o Shri K. K. Dhurve Aged About 31 Years R/o H. No. 205/12, Shikshak Nagar, Near Railway Colony, Ward No.2, Balod, Dist. Balod, C.G. 21 - Kajal Shyam D/o Shri C.S. Shyam Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Binjhrapara, Post Baksahi, Tahsil Pali, Dist. Korba, C.G. 22 - Dushyant Kumar S/o Shri Revet Ram Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Khalari, Post- Khalari, Tahsil Dondi, Dist. Balod, C.G. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 7 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Dist.- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Dist. Raipur, C.G. (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri and Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aman Tamboli and Ms. Shiwali Bansal, Mr. Manoj Sharma, Senior Advocate appears through Video Conferencing, Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Ms. Saloni Verma, Mr. T. K. Jha, Mr. Anup Majumdar, Mr. K. Rohan, Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha and Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Advocates For State : Mr. Prafulla N. Bharat, Advocate General along with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General For C.B.I. : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate For C.G.P.S.C. : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate and Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C.A.V. Order 1.
Decision
The contents and factual matrix involved in all the writ petitions would revel that the bone of contention in them is one and the same, as such, all these writ petitions are clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) issued an advertisement dated 26.11.2021 for direct recruitment to 171 posts across 20 different services for the year 2021, including 15 posts for the position of Deputy Collector. The petitioners applied for the said post, participated in the selection process, and were found eligible and meritorious. Consequently, the name of petitioners were included in the 8 final selection list published on 11.05.2023. Although certain allegations of corruption and favouritism were made against CGPSC officials regarding the 2021 recruitment, leading to a CBI investigation ordered by the Court, the selection of petitioners are neither under investigation nor challenged by any third party, thus remaining bona fide and untainted. Despite this, the respondent authorities have issued appointment orders to some candidates whose selection is under investigation and to selectees from the 2022 recruitment cycle, while arbitrarily excluding the petitioners. This discriminatory treatment violates the principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. As per Rule 13 of the CGPSC Rules of Procedure, 2014, the validity of the selection list extends until 10.05.2024, and the recruitment process must be concluded within this period. The petitioners, being duly selected and eligible, has a legitimate right to be considered for appointment, yet no action has been taken by the respondents. If the appointment orders are not issued before the expiry of the selection list, the legitimate expectations and efforts of petitioners will be rendered futile, defeating the very purpose of the recruitment process. Aggrieved by such inaction and arbitrary exclusion, the petitioners are constrained to file the present petitions seeking appropriate directions to the respondent authorities for issuance of the appointment order. Writ petition No. 2311 of 2024 has been taken as lead case in order to decide the issues involved in this matter. The petitioner in the said writ petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :- “10.1) That, this Hon'ble High Court may be kind enough to direct respondent authorities to issue appointment order in respect of the petitioner who is 9 in the select list dated 11/05/2023, in the interest of justice. 10.2.) That this Hon'ble high court may be kind enough to direct respondent authority to finalise the selection procedure before the expiry of validity list i.e. 10/05/2024 and issue appropriate appointment order with respect to petitioner. 10.3.) That It may be declared that the validity of Select list dated 11/05/2023 with respect to the petitioner will not be continue to operate, until the issuance of appointment order. 10.4.) That, any other relief/reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 3. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the CGPSC issued an advertisement dated 26.11.2021, published on 01.12.2021, inviting applications for recruitment to 171 posts across 20 different State services, including 15 posts for Deputy Collector and several other posts such as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Superintendent (District Jail), Finance Officer, Labour Officer, Assistant Jail Superintendent, Naib Tahsildar, and others. The recruitment process was conducted as per the CGPSC Rules of Procedure, 2014 (as amended in 2019). The petitioners, being fully eligible and meritorious, applied under their respective categories (Unreserved, OBC, SC, ST, OBC Female) and successfully participated in the multi-stage selection process comprising a preliminary examination held on 13.02.2022, mains examination conducted from 26.05.2022 to 29.05.2022, and interviews held from 20.09.2022 to 30.09.2022. Upon conclusion of the recruitment process, the final merit list was published on 11.05.2023, in which the petitioners secured top positions, including 1st rank in the SC category (WPS 2311/2024), 1st rank in OBC category for Superintendent (District Jail) (WPS 577/2024), and other high-ranking 10 positions in the overall list for Deputy Collector and Deputy Superintendent of Police (WPS 2048/2024, 2469/2024, 2528/2024, 2610/2024). Pursuant to their selection, the petitioners were called for document verification and submission of requisite undertakings and affidavits between May 2023 and June 2023. In certain cases, such as WPS 577/2024, the petitioners were also directed to undergo medical examinations, which they duly completed. Thus, all post-selection formalities were complied with by the petitioners in accordance with law. In the meantime, a Public Interest Litigation bearing W.P.(PIL) No. 81/2023 was filed by a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) before this Hon’ble Court, alleging irregularities, favoritism, and corruption in the CGPSC 2021 recruitment process. The PIL specifically alleged that certain selected candidates were relatives of influential persons, including politicians, senior bureaucrats, and members of the CGPSC administration. During the hearings, the Office of the Advocate General submitted that an FIR bearing No. 05/2024 had already been registered under Sections 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was also submitted that the investigation had been handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Upon recording the above submissions, this Hon’ble Court disposed of the PIL on 14.02.2024, leaving the matter to be investigated by the CBI. However, despite no allegations of misconduct or irregularity being made against the petitioners, their appointment orders have been arbitrarily withheld by the respondents. It is noteworthy that other candidates whose selections are also allegedly under investigation have nonetheless been issued appointment orders and permitted to 11 join their service. For example, appointment orders were issued to selected candidates for posts such as Labour Officer, Assistant Director (Tribal Development), Finance Officer, Naib Tahsildar, and Assistant Jail Superintendent under the same recruitment notification. Aggrieved by such arbitrary discrimination, the petitioners submitted multiple representations to the respondent authorities between October 2023 and January 2024, seeking issuance of their appointment orders. However, no response or action has been forthcoming. Some petitioners also filed applications under the Right to Information Act to ascertain the reasons for the delay, but no substantive information has been provided. As per Rule 19.2 of the CGPSC Rules of Procedure, 2014, the select list remains valid for one year from its publication (11.05.2023 to 10.05.2024) and may be extended up to two years in extraordinary circumstances as per an amendment notified on 02.05.2019. The petitioners submit that failure to issue their appointment orders before expiry of the select list’s validity will render their entire selection process futile, thereby frustrating the fruits of their years of arduous preparation and irreparably harming their service prospects. In the meantime, the CGPSC, 2022 recruitment cycle has been completed, and candidates selected therein have already been issued appointment orders and sent for training, thereby gaining seniority over the petitioners from the 2021 batch. The arbitrary withholding of appointment orders to the petitioners, who have been selected purely on merit and against whom no allegations exist, violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, some of whom have been preparing for civil services since as early as 2015 and have made 12 repeated attempts to succeed in the CGPSC examinations, now stand to lose the fruit of their hard work, perseverance, and merit due to the inaction of the respondents. 4. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Malay Shrivastava, and Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri and Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aman Tamboli and Ms. Shiwali Bansal, Mr. Manoj Sharma, Senior Advocate appears through Video Conferencing, assisted by Mr. K. Rohan, Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Mr. T. K. Jha, Mr. Anup Majumdar, Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha and Ms. Saloni Verma, Advocates for the petitioners submit that the action of the respondent- State in withholding the issuance of appointment orders to the petitioners, despite their inclusion in the select list dated 11.05.2023 pursuant to the Chhattisgarh State Civil Services Examination-2021, is patently arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, having successfully participated in a rigorous, merit-based selection process conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC), and having emerged successful on their own merit, have a legitimate expectation of appointment. The denial of this expectation without any cogent, justified, or lawful reason infringes their fundamental rights and undermines the sanctity of the selection process. The only purported justification offered by the State is the pendency of a CBI investigation against certain candidates involved in the same selection process. It is humbly submitted that this justification is untenable insofar as no allegations whatsoever have been made against the petitioners 13 individually, nor are their selections in any manner tainted. The respondents’ decision to impose a blanket embargo on all appointments, including those of unblemished and meritorious candidates like the petitioners, amounts to an overbroad, disproportionate, and colourable exercise of power. Such collective punishment of innocent candidates violates the principles of natural justice and due process. It is further submitted that several other candidates selected in the same recruitment process have already been issued appointment orders and allowed to join service in various departments. Arbitrarily singling out the petitioners, particularly for posts such as Deputy Collector and Deputy Superintendent of Police, without any rational classification or lawful justification, reflects a discriminatory and inconsistent approach violative of Article 14. This pick-and-choose method adopted by the State is impermissible under law and undermines public confidence in fair governance. The petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court well before the expiry of the select list dated 11.05.2023, which, under Rule 19.2 of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Rules, 2014, remains valid only up to 10.05.2024. If appointments are not issued before this date, the petitioners’ hard-earned selection would lapse irretrievably. It is a settled legal position as held in Ashok Kumar v. State of A.P., Harish Chandra v. State of U.P., and reiterated in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, that once a select list expires, Courts are powerless to compel appointments even where delays are not attributable to the candidates. This reinforces the urgent need for expeditious judicial intervention to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners place reliance upon the decisions 14 in the matter of Rajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Md. Kalimuddin v. State of Bihar, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once a candidate is selected, the State must act reasonably and within a reasonable time frame to issue appointments, in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Chopra, where the Court recognized the right of selected candidates to appointment against existing vacancies, in the matter of Ishwar Sharan Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, WA No. 92/2013, where this Court held that denial of appointment on the ground of expiration of list is unconstitutional when the delay was attributable to the State. It is contended by learned counsel for the respective petitioners that although inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, as held in Shankarsan Dash, the State remains under a constitutional and legal duty to act fairly, reasonably, and in a non-discriminatory manner. The petitioners, having emerged successful through a transparent and competitive process, have acquired a legitimate expectation that their selection would culminate in appointment unless there are compelling and individualized reasons to deny the same. Even assuming (without admitting) that the respondents’ apprehensions regarding the pending investigation are well-founded, it is submitted that a more balanced approach could have been adopted by issuing conditional or provisional appointment orders to the petitioners, subject to the outcome of the inquiry. Such an equitable solution would protect the petitioners’ rights while safeguarding the interests of the State. The failure of the respondents to adopt such a course underscores the arbitrariness and mala fides of their action. Many petitioners belong to reserved categories such as Scheduled Castes and OBCs and face no 15 superior claimants in their respective categories. Denying them appointments undermines the constitutional mandate of adequate representation. Furthermore, with the select list for Chhattisgarh Civil Services Examination-2022 already notified, any appointments from the subsequent batch before resolving the petitioners’ claims would gravely prejudice their seniority and career prospects. The arbitrary withholding of appointment orders has inflicted severe mental agony, financial hardship, and irreparable harm to the petitioners, many of whom made significant personal and financial sacrifices to succeed in the examination. The prolonged uncertainty surrounding their careers violates their right to live with dignity under Article 21. The non- issuance of appointments also adversely affects public interest by leaving key administrative posts vacant, thereby hampering governance and service delivery to citizens. Issuing appointment orders would not only vindicate the petitioners’ rights but also serve the larger public interest. The respondents appear to have misapplied or misunderstood the interim order in WPPIL No. 81/2023, which only advised caution in making appointments pending inquiry and did not mandate a complete freeze on all appointments. The blanket suspension of all appointments, without distinguishing between tainted and untainted candidates, is an unwarranted overreach and contrary to the spirit of the interim directions. In light of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith issue appointment orders to the petitioners prior to the expiry of the select list dated 11.05.2023 and; In the alternative, direct that the petitioners be provisionally appointed subject to the outcome of the ongoing investigation. 16 5. Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate and Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocates for the respondent – Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, at the outset, submits that it has duly discharged its statutory functions and responsibilities in a fair, transparent, and time- bound manner pursuant to the advertisement No. 09/2021 published on 01.12.2021 for the Chhattisgarh State Civil Services Examination- 2021. Upon culmination of the entire selection process, the final selection list was published under missive No. 177/63/Selection/2022 dated 11.05.2023 and duly forwarded to the concerned administrative department of the State Government for further action pertaining to issuance of appointment orders and posting of selected candidates. It is submitted that the role of the answering respondent ends with the preparation and transmission of the final selection list to the State Government. The issuance of appointment orders, posting, and joining formalities lie exclusively within the administrative prerogative and domain of the respective State departments. Therefore, the present dispute concerning non-issuance of appointment orders cannot be attributed to any act or omission on the part of the answering respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent – Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission emphatically denies any delay or irregularity in the conduct of the selection process. The entire examination process was conducted and completed within the permissible framework and validity period, in accordance with applicable Rules and instructions. Any alleged delay in appointment after the issuance of the selection list is outside the purview and control of the PSC. It is submitted that the petitioners’ grievances do not survive against the answering respondent, as the Commission has acted in strict adherence to its 17 constitutional and statutory obligations under Article 315 of the Constitution and the relevant Rules governing the selection process. The allegation by the petitioners that the final select list was issued after the period of one year is misconceived and incorrect. The select list dated 11.05.2023 was issued within the validity period and communicated to the concerned authorities in time. The answering respondent has not contributed to any delay in appointments, and such delay, if any, is solely attributable to administrative decisions of the State. Therefore, no relief can be sought or granted against the answering respondent, as the PSC has completed its limited and defined mandate. The petitioners’ cause of action, if any, lies entirely with the State Government and not the Public Service Commission. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent – PSC, it is submitted that all the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed qua the respondent – PSC at the very threshold for being misdirected, misconceived and unsustainable in law against the PSC. Hence, Court may be pleased to dismiss the present writ petitions qua the respondent – PSC. 6. Mr. Prafulla N. Bharat, Advocate General, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General submit that the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondent - State to issue appointment orders pursuant to their inclusion in the final select list dated 11.05.2023, issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) following the Civil Services Examination, 2021. The petitioners contend that they have gone through the entire selection process and have been found eligible and meritorious for 18 appointment, particularly for prestigious posts such as Deputy Collector, and that the failure of State to issue appointment orders within the validity period of the select list, i.e., till 10.05.2024, constitutes arbitrary inaction violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. At the outset, it is submitted by the respondent - State that while it is true that the selection process culminated in the issuance of the final select list by the CGPSC on 11.05.2023, the situation surrounding the said list and the appointments therefrom is complex and unprecedented due to extremely serious and credible allegations of large-scale corruption, favoritism, and manipulation that have emerged in connection with the CGPSC recruitment for the year 2021. The petitioners’ contentions overlook the broader institutional crisis and the systemic irregularities uncovered, which go to the very root of the legitimacy of the selection process. The mere inclusion of the petitioners in the merit list does not automatically entitle them to appointment, particularly when the entire process is under forensic and criminal scrutiny by the premier investigative agency of the country, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The genesis of the State’s cautious approach lies in the filing of a Public Interest Litigation (WPPIL No. 81/2023) before this Court by a former Minister and senior public figure, who alleged shocking irregularities in the conduct of the CGPSC Examination, 2021. The PIL specifically alleged that several close relatives of the then Chairman, Secretary, and other members of the Commission had been selected in the examination owing to nepotism, undue influence, and acts of corruption, thereby vitiating the entire process and undermining public trust in the institution. It is noteworthy that in the proceedings held on 20.09.2023, the then Additional 19 Advocate General made a statement before this Court, based on instructions, that the State would, in view of the allegations, withhold further appointments of all candidates who had not yet been appointed or joined their respective posts. Following the above developments, and considering the seriousness of the allegations, which directly impugn the sanctity of the constitutional role of CGPSC, the State Government deemed it necessary to initiate a preliminary inquiry. Consequently, an FIR was registered as Crime No. 28/2024 dated 16.02.2024 at Police Station Arjunda, District Balod, under Sections 420, 120B IPC and Sections 7, 7A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR named the then CGPSC Chairman, the then Secretary, and other functionaries, including private individuals, as accused persons. Simultaneously, the Anti-Corruption Bureau/EOW also registered a parallel FIR bearing Crime No. 05/2024, further corroborating the existence of grave and wide-ranging malpractices within the recruitment process. In view of the magnitude and implications of the allegations, and to ensure a fair, impartial, and institutionally credible investigation, the State Government, through its order dated 16.02.2024, took the considered decision to refer the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI subsequently registered FIR No. RC1242024A0004 on 09.07.2024 and undertook an in-depth investigation involving the scrutiny of records, digital forensics, witness statements, and material evidence. Upon completion of a substantial part of the investigation, the CBI filed a chargesheet on 16.01.2025 before the Special Judge (CBI Cases), Raipur, implicating, among others, the then Chairman. The chargesheet details the manner in which the selection process was 20 allegedly manipulated at multiple stages, including paper leaks, tampering of answer scripts, and preferential treatment to relatives and associates of Commission members. Significantly, the CBI has not closed the investigation and has clearly indicated in the chargesheet that further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC remains pending in respect of other selected candidates for the post of Deputy Collector and allied services. These revelations go to the heart of the credibility and fairness of the CGPSC Examination, 2021 and render it impossible for the State to proceed mechanically with appointments from a list whose integrity is under serious and continuing criminal scrutiny. It is imperative to emphasize that the respondent-State is not acting with any mala fide intent or in breach of constitutional guarantees. Rather, it is exercising due administrative caution, consistent with the principles of public accountability, legal propriety, and institutional integrity. The Constitution enjoins upon the State the responsibility to ensure that public employment is allocated in a fair, transparent, and merit-based manner, and that no individual, however deserving on the surface, derives undue advantage from a tainted process. To act otherwise would be to legitimize the very illegality that the ongoing investigation seeks to root out. The contention of the petitioners that their individual selections are untainted and that they are being collectively penalized is understandable on a human level but cannot be legally sustained in the face of ongoing criminal investigations into the process as a whole. It is submitted that the presumption of regularity in public recruitment stands rebutted, once credible evidence and a prima facie case of systematic abuse is established by an impartial agency like the CBI. Moreover, it is settled 21 law that inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, and the employer retains the discretion to refrain from making appointments for valid, reasonable, and bona fide reasons, especially where integrity of the process is under a cloud. [Ref: Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47; Union of India v. Rajesh P.U., reported in (2003) 7 SCC 285]. The alternative plea of the petitioners for provisional or conditional appointments is, with respect, equally untenable. Given the serious allegations and the continuing nature of the investigation, any interim or provisional appointments would not only compromise the sanctity of the service but also lead to irreversible administrative complications. If the eventual outcome of the CBI investigation were to confirm the taint in selections, such appointments would either have to be terminated or subjected to complex litigation, causing avoidable harm to the governance apparatus and the selected individuals themselves. In conclusion, it is contended that the respondent-State is acting in a responsible, legal, and constitutionally sound manner by withholding appointments until the CBI concludes its investigation and submits its final findings. The State is committed to taking an appropriate and legally sustainable decision based on the outcome of the said investigation. Therefore, the present petition is premature, misconceived, and liable to be dismissed, as any intervention by this Court at this stage would risk interfering in an evolving investigative process involving grave and sensitive allegations of corruption in public employment. In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the 22 writ petition as premature, devoid of merit, and not maintainable at this stage. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have carefully perused the documents annexed to these writ petitions with due circumspection. 8. The present matter revolves around the issuance of appointment orders following the Chhattisgarh State Civil Services Examination (CSCS), 2021, conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC). The crux of the dispute lies in the arbitrary withholding of appointment orders to petitioners who have been meritoriously selected in the recruitment process, despite their compliance with all procedural and legal formalities. The backdrop of the case is complex, involving serious allegations of corruption and manipulation in the recruitment process, which have resulted in an ongoing criminal investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The petitioners, however, seek relief based on their individual merits and absence of any specific allegations against them, arguing that their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India have been infringed due to the inaction on the part of the State. 9. At the outset, it must be noted that the CGPSC, a constitutional body established under Article 315 of the Constitution, discharged its statutory duty by conducting the recruitment process in a transparent, fair, and timely manner in accordance with the CGPSC Rules of Procedure, 2014 (as amended). The final select list was duly published on 11.05.2023 within the prescribed validity period, thereby marking the 23 successful culmination of the role of Commission in the recruitment process. The role of the CGPSC is, by statutory design, confined to conducting examinations, preparing merit lists, and forwarding the select lists to the appropriate Government Departments for further action such as issuance of appointment orders and posting. The mandate of Public Service Commission is clear, and no evidence suggests that it deviated from or faltered in its constitutional duties. Therefore, no relief is warranted against the CGPSC, and any grievance the petitioners may have regarding appointment delays is properly directed at the State government. 10. Turning to the role of the State Government, it emerges that the decision to withhold appointment orders is not a casual administrative lapse but a deliberate, considered response to grave and credible allegations of systemic corruption and nepotism within the recruitment process. These allegations, which were serious enough to prompt the filing of a Public Interest Litigation by a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly and subsequent registration of multiple FIRs, point to irregularities that strike at the heart of the integrity of selection process. 11. The involvement of Central Bureau of Investigation underscores the magnitude and institutional sensitivity of the matter. Given that the investigation remains ongoing and the chargesheet implicates senior officials, including the then Chairman of CGPSC, the cautious approach on the part of State to freeze appointments pending the conclusion of the inquiry is understandable. However, the petitioners’ grievance, that they alone are being penalized despite having no 24 individual allegations against them, raises a compelling point on the principles of discrimination, arbitrariness, fairness, transparency, natural justice, and constitutional safeguards. The blanket embargo of State on issuing appointment orders to all candidates from the 2021 recruitment, while allowing other candidates from the same notification in different posts to be appointed, gives rise to a discriminatory and arbitrary approach. The denial of appointment to petitioners who secured top ranks, particularly in key categories such as Deputy Collector and Deputy Superintendent of Police, without any individualized inquiry or tangible basis, violates the equal protection of laws guaranteed under Article 14 and the right to equality of opportunity in public employment guaranteed by Article 16. The indiscriminate freezing of appointment in an overbroad and disproportionate restriction, which cannot be justified merely on the basis of the ongoing investigation into other candidates or officials. Moreover, the petitioners’ legitimate expectation of appointment is firmly grounded in the settled principles of administrative law and constitutional jurisprudence. Having cleared a rigorous, merit-based selection process conducted by an independent constitutional authority, the petitioners have acquired a vested right to be appointed unless valid and specific reasons warrant otherwise. The expiration of the select list’s validity period (11.05.2023 to 10.05.2024) looms large as an existential threat to the petitioners’ service prospects, as the failure to appoint within this period may render their selection futile and irretrievable. 12. The argument advanced by learned State counsel against provisional or conditional appointments, citing administrative complications and the 25 risk of later reversals, deserves careful scrutiny. While the concerns about potential administrative chaos are genuine, they do not justify outright denial of appointment to meritorious candidates who have cleared all formalities. A balanced and nuanced approach is warranted, one that safeguards the interest of State in preserving institutional integrity and the petitioners’ constitutional rights. Provisional appointments subject to the outcome of the ongoing investigation are a legally recognized and pragmatic solution that has been adopted in various public service recruitment disputes across jurisdictions. This approach does not prejudice the investigation but protects the petitioners from irreparable harm caused by indefinite delay. The failure of State to explore or adopt this middle path highlights an element of arbitrariness that warrants judicial scrutiny. Further, the discriminatory impact on candidates from reserved categories such as Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes cannot be ignored. Denying appointments to such candidates not only contravenes the constitutional mandate of adequate representation but also undermines affirmative action policies designed to ensure social justice and equity. The adverse consequences of such denial extend beyond individual hardships to the broader public interest, where key administrative vacancies remain unfilled, thereby impairing governance and service delivery to citizens. The invocation of Article 21 rights by the petitioners is also persuasive. The right to live with dignity encompasses the right to livelihood and to pursue a lawful occupation. The petitioners, many of whom have dedicated years of preparation and made substantial personal sacrifices, now face severe uncertainty, financial distress, and mental anguish due to administrative inaction. Prolonged denial of 26 appointment affects not just their career trajectory but also their fundamental dignity, reinforcing the need for judicial intervention. 13. It is pertinent to note that in most cases, the petitioners were not merely included in the final merit list but were also called for document verification and, in several instances, for medical examination. These steps go beyond selection, they are conclusive stages preceding the issuance of appointment orders. At no point during document verification or medical examination were the petitioners found ineligible or unfit. The CGPSC or any other authority did not raise any concerns regarding the eligibility, character, or conduct of the petitioners. This sequence of events clearly establishes that the petitioners had every legitimate expectation of receiving their appointment orders in due course, and such expectation cannot be dismissed as unfounded. The abrupt deviation from this process occurred only after the PIL was filed by a sitting MLA, who alleged large-scale malpractice and favoritism, naming relatives of PSC officials as beneficiaries. The State, in its response to the PIL, indicated that it had taken cognizance of the allegations and had initiated inquiries. Based on this representation, the High Court disposed of the PIL, expressing hope and confidence that the State would investigate the matter thoroughly and take appropriate action. This chain of events appears to be the rationale behind the complete halt of the appointment process. The submission by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the mere filing of a PIL and lodging of FIRs, absent any proven wrongdoing by specific individuals, cannot serve as a legitimate basis for indefinitely withholding appointments, is both valid and compelling. Allegations, however grave, must be substantiated by evidence before punitive 27 action is taken against individuals who have followed due process. Notably, no stage of the recruitment process has revealed any misrepresentation or malpractice on part of these petitioners. The FIRs themselves appear to have originated from complaints made by a sitting MLA belonging to a political party in opposition at the relevant time based upon some individual complaint. An additional element of arbitrariness emerges from the fact that while appointments have been withheld for posts such as Deputy Collector and Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), candidates selected for other posts under the same notification have been appointed without restraint. Such selective enforcement, without any rational or legal basis, runs afoul of Article 14, as it results in unjustified discrimination between similarly placed individuals. It reinforces the perception that the freeze has been applied unevenly, without any clear criteria. Moreover, some petitioners, apprehending the possibility of nepotism-related bias, consciously avoided using their surnames during the recruitment process to prevent any appearance of impropriety or preferential treatment. This conduct reflects an intent to participate transparently in a competitive examination on the strength of merit alone. The contention of State that provisional or conditional appointments may cause administrative complications and risk reversals if wrongdoing is later established, while not entirely baseless, does not justify the wholesale denial of appointments. Courts across jurisdictions have upheld the legality of provisional appointments, subject to the outcome of pending investigations. Such an approach balances institutional integrity with individual rights and prevents irreparable harm to those unfairly caught in the administrative impasse. The principle of 28 adequate representation and the commitment to social justice embedded in Articles 15(4), 16(4), and related provisions demand that these individuals are not unfairly excluded, especially when they have cleared a rigorous, merit-based selection process. Finally, the invocation of Article 21 by the petitioners is both relevant and compelling. The right to life includes the right to live with dignity, and this necessarily encompasses the right to livelihood. The petitioners, many of whom have invested years of preparation and suffered immense personal and financial sacrifices, now face uncertainty, emotional distress, and potential career derailment. The indefinite withholding of appointment, in the absence of specific findings of misconduct, is a denial of their right to dignity, livelihood, and equal opportunity under the Constitution. 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tej Prakash Pathak and Others vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1 has held as under : “(F) Appointment may be denied even after placement in select list 63. In Section (C) above, we have already noticed the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Shankarsan Dash [Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 800] where it was held : (SCC p. 51, para 7) “7. … Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the 29 vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted.” 64. Thus, in light of the decision in Shankarsan Dash [Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 800] , a candidate placed in the select list gets no indefeasible right to be appointed even if vacancies are available. Similar was the view taken by this Court in Subash Chander Marwaha [State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488] where against 15 vacancies only top 7 from the select list were appointed. But there is a caveat. The State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a selected candidate. Therefore, when a challenge is laid to State's action in respect of denying appointment to a selected candidate, the burden is on the State to justify its decision for not making appointment from the select list. 65.6 Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.” 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, reported in (2024) 3 SCC 799, underscores that where a public body, through its established procedures, past actions, or explicit assurances, creates an expectation in individuals, such expectation may be deemed legitimate and legally enforceabl and has held as under : 30 “18. The basis of the doctrine of legitimate expectation in public law is founded on the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in Government dealings with individuals. It recognises that a public authority's promise or past conduct will give rise to a legitimate expectation. The doctrine is premised on the notion that public authorities, while performing their public duties, ought to honour their promises or past practices. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred if it is rooted in law, custom, or established procedure.” 16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of East Coast Railway and Another vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and Others, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 678 has held as under : “14. It is evident from the above that while no candidate acquires an indefeasible right to a post merely because he has appeared in the examination or even found a place in the select list, yet the State does not enjoy an unqualified prerogative to refuse an appointment in an arbitrary fashion or to disregard the merit of the candidates as reflected by the merit list prepared at the end of the selection process. The validity of the State's decision not to make an appointment is thus a matter which is not beyond judicial review before a competent writ court. If any such decision is indeed found to be arbitrary, appropriate directions can be issued in the matter.” 17. In the matter of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47, Hon’ble Supreme Court highlights the principle that 31 the decision not to fill up vacancies must be taken bona fide and for appropriate reasons and has held as under : “7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted.” 18. High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the matter of Mandeep Kaur vs. Canara Bank and Another, passed in CWP-1827- 2019 has held as under : So far as the mere registration or pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner, is concerned, needless to say that FIR is merely a report regarding an alleged incident which may or may not involve commission of some offence. Therefore, mere factum of the receipt of first information by the police cannot be raised to the level of a fact rendering a candidate ineligible for the public appointment. A person is to be presumed to be innocent till proved otherwise upon a 32 trial conducted as per the law. This presumption of innocence cannot be eclipsed in any other collateralprocess or for any other purpose. Reading anything adverse to a person only for registration of an FIR is nothing but a systemic bias based upon a negativism arising from the frustration due to the facts that the criminal cases remain pending for years together and the courts are not in a position to take the trial to a logical end within reasonable time. Hence, a convenient method has been devised to deny benefits to citizen by putting factum of registration of FIR against him in the forefront. In this way, an irrelevant fact is made a ground to deny to the citizen right to equality guaranteed by Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. This approach is sworn enemy of the rule of law, and thus has to be disapproved. Therefore, mere registration of a criminal case against the candidate can never be a ground for denying the rights of such a candidate to participate in the process and to secure a public appointment in his/her favour. Moreover, even the said FIR now stands quashed. Therefore, the very basis on which the action of the respondents was based, has been extinguished by the due process of law. Therefore, the eclipse cast upon the rights of the petitioner, even if so perceived by the respondents, though without any basis, already stands removed. The reliance of the learned counsel for the respondents upon the terms of appointment letter is totally irrelevant and non-sustainable. It is not even in dispute that there is no rule/regulation applicable to the respondents which prohibits the appointment of a candidate merely on registration of the criminal case. Therefore, induction of a term in the appointment letter, to the effect that if a criminal case is registered then the appointment would be denied, would be totally without any 33 legalsanction. The respondents cannot introduce a condition in terms of the appointment which is not supported by any statutory provision; and it also goes against the right to equality of the candidate to participate in the process of selection and to secure a public appointment as per his/her merit. Such a condition is an artificial device created by the respondents; which militates against the fundamental rights of the petitioner and against more than one jurisprudential principles. Therefore, the same deserves to be deprecated with the contempt it deserves. In view of the above, the impugned order/action of the respondents is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner, effective from the date the candidate immediately lower to her in the merit of selection was appointed. The petitioner shall also be, accordingly, entitled to all service benefits including seniority and pay fixation on notional basis. However, she will not be entitled to arrears of salary upto the date she actually joins. However, this denial of arrears shall not be taken as adverse to the petitioner for any other purpose whatsoever, or for the purpose of grant of any other benefits, including the pensionary benefits at the end of her tenure. The respondents are directed to issue the necessary appointment letter to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.” 19. The High Court of Allahabad in the matter of Fakhruddin Ali vs. State of U.P. and another, passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6671 of 2005 has held as under : 34 “4. In Delhi Administration, through its Chief Secretary and others v. Sushil Kumar, 1996 SCC 605 [Labour and Service 492], the Supreme Court held that the verification of the character and antecedents is one of the most important criteria to test whether the selected candidate was suitable to a post or not. In the present case, the District Magistrate has certified that the petitioner has a good character except for his involvement in the criminal case. In my opinion, the respondents could not deny an appointment on the post of Constable merely because of the pendency of the criminal trial. 5. In Sanjay Kumar v. State of NP. and others [2003] 3 UPLBEC 2193, this Court held that lodging of an F.I.R. alone was not sufficient for an incumbent to be denied an appointment on the post of a Government office. This judgment squarely applies to the present facts and circumstances of the case.” 20. For the sake of convenience, the particulars of the petitioners are tabulated below : Case No. Name Post Rank Name in FIR Name in Charge- sheet Document verification DC 7 No No Yes WPS/2311/2024 Amit Kumar Bharadwaj WPS/577/2024 WPS/2048/2024 WPS/2048/2024 WPS/2048/2024 Rahul Kumar Patel Shrikant Dev Shukla Yatindra Burman Mrinmayee Shukla SDJ 48 No DSP 25 No DSP 24 No DSP 32 No WPS/2048/2024 Vibhas DSP 35 No No No No No No Yes No No No No 35 WPS/2048/2024 Nagdeve Shashwat Mishra DSP 39 No WPS/2048/2024 Rahul Sharma DSP 41 No WPS/2048/2024 Ashesh Chandra Sharma DSP 42 No WPS/2048/2024 Sonal Yadav DSP WPS/2048/2024 Vinay Kashyap DSP 49 52 No No WPS/2048/2024 WPS/2048/2024 Rajesh Kumar Sahu Shailendra Anant DSP 61 No DSP 108 No WPS/2048/2024 Yamini Banjare DSP 179 No WPS/2048/2024 Vinod Kumar Banjare DSP 194 No WPS/2048/2024 Rajeev Singh DSP 290 WPS/2048/2024 Vinayak Singh DSP 294 No No WPS/2048/2024 Mukesh Kumar Painkra DSP 309 No WPS/2048/2024 WPS/2048/2024 Bhujendra Singh Pradeep Bhagat DSP 317 No DSP 324 No WPS/2048/2024 Pushpendra DSP 321 WPS/2048/2024 Kamini Dhruv DSP 273 WPS/2048/2024 Kajal Shyam DSP 335 No No No WPS/2048/2024 WPS/2469/2024 Dushyant Kumar Princee Tamboli DSP 160 No DC 14 No WPS/2528/2024 Rana Vijay DC 5 No WPS/2610/2024 Mahendra Kumar Sidar WPS/2645/2024 Neha Xalxo WPS/2799/2024 Nikhil Xalxo WPS/5411/2024 Khushboo DC 139 No DC DC DC 13 17 11 Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Bizoara WPS/5704/2024 Sakshi Dhruw WPS/5706/2024 Pragya Nayak WPS/5742/2024 WPS/5743/2024 Shashank Goyal Bhumika Katiyar 36 DC DC DC DC 15 1 3 4 WPS/6026/2024 Sahil DSP 26 WPS/6036/2024 Nitesh WPS/6880/2024 Ananya Agrawal DC DC 8 2 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 21. In the present matter, neither the Public Service Commission (PSC) nor any complainant has brought forth any plea or allegation of malpractice or unfair means in the conduct of the examination or in the declaration of the results, including during the scrutiny of documents prior to the written examination or at any stage of the preliminary examination. Furthermore, no allegations have been made against any petitioner during the written examination or the interview process. Some petitioners were called for medical examination as part of the verification process; however, at no point during these proceedings have any allegations been raised against them from any quarter. Subsequent to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by an MLA who is not a member of the ruling party, an FIR was registered and an investigation initiated. It is important to note that the FIR itself does not indicate that all petitioners secured their seats through any malpractice during the recruitment process. The matter was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for further inquiry, but to date, there is no material on record to substantiate any commission of 37 malpractice. The future prospects of aspirants who have secured their positions through a rigorous and competitive process cannot be stalled merely on the basis of vague complaints. The FIR and the complaints do not contain specific allegations against all petitioners. In fact, some allegations pertain only to candidates who are reportedly related or connected to high-ranking officials of the PSC in the current batch. Many candidates have been selected and are awaiting appointment orders. Under such circumstances, it would be unjust to categorically label all petitioners as “tainted candidates.” The CBI is already conducting a thorough investigation. If any petitioner would be found involved in any wrongdoing, appropriate consequences will undoubtedly follow. However, until such findings are established, appointments cannot be withheld merely on assumptions or presumptions. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shankar Das has held that the State or its instrumentalities cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a selected candidate. When the action of the State in denying appointment to a selected candidate is challenged, the burden lies on the State to justify its decision for not appointing candidates from the select list. To date, the State has failed to provide any justification for withholding appointment of the petitioners. 22. Further guidance on the issue has been provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sachin Kumar & Others vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) & Others, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 631. In this case, the Court reaffirmed the principle that even in cases involving large-scale irregularities, the rights of bona fide candidates must be protected. The Court categorically held that malfeasance on the part of a few individuals should not result in 38 penalizing those who were not involved in any wrongdoing. The State authorities are obligated to distinguish between culpable and innocent candidates, and ensure that those found to be uninvolved in any malpractice are not unjustly denied their appointments. Relevant paragraphs are quoted hereunder for ready reference : “F. The position in law 35. In deciding this batch of SLPs, we need not reinvent the wheel. Over the last five decades, several decisions of this Court have dealt with the fundamental issue of when the process of an examination can stand vitiated. Essentially, the answer to the issue turns upon whether the irregularities in the process have taken place at a systemic level so as to vitiate the sanctity of the process. There are cases which border upon or cross over into the domain of fraud as a result of which the credibility and legitimacy of the process is denuded. This constitutes one end of the spectrum where the authority conducting the examination or convening the selection process comes to the conclusion that as a result of supervening event or circumstances, the process has lost its legitimacy, leaving no option but to cancel it in its entirety. Where a decision along those lines is taken, it does not turn upon a fact-finding exercise into individual acts involving the use of malpractices or unfair means. Where a recourse to unfair means has taken place on a systemic scale, it may be difficult to segregate the tainted from the untainted participants in the process. Large-scale irregularities including those which have the effect of denying equal access to similarly circumstanced candidates are suggestive of a malaise which has eroded the credibility of the process. At the other end of the spectrum are cases where some of the participants in the process who appear 39 at the examination or selection test are guilty of irregularities. In such a case, it may well be possible to segregate persons who are guilty of wrongdoing from others who have adhered to the rules and to exclude the former from the process. In such a case, those who are innocent of wrongdoing should not pay a price for those who are actually found to be involved in irregularities. By segregating the wrongdoers, the selection of the untainted candidates can be allowed to pass muster by taking the selection process to its logical conclusion. This is not a mere matter of administrative procedure but as a principle of service jurisprudence it finds embodiment in the constitutional duty by which public bodies have to act fairly and reasonably. A fair and reasonable process of selection to posts subject to the norm of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) is a constitutional requirement. A fair and reasonable process is a fundamental requirement of Article 14 as well. Where the recruitment to public employment stands vitiated as a consequence of systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire process becomes illegitimate. On the other hand, where it is possible to segregate persons who have indulged in malpractices and to penalise them for their wrongdoing, it would be unfair to impose the burden of their wrongdoing on those who are free from taint. To treat the innocent and the wrongdoers equally by subjecting the former to the consequence of the cancellation of the entire process would be contrary to Article 14 because unequals would then be treated equally. The requirement that a public body must act in fair and reasonable terms animates the entire process of selection. The decisions of the recruiting body are hence subject to judicial control subject to the settled principle that the recruiting authority 40 must have a measure of discretion to take decisions in accordance with law which are best suited to preserve the sanctity of the process. Now it is in the backdrop of these principles, that it becomes appropriate to advert to the precedents of this Court which hold the field. 41. On the other hand, the judgment of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Rajesh P.U. [Union of India v. Rajesh P.U., (2003) 7 SCC 285 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 1048] involved a situation where a selection list consequent to a written examination, interview and physical fitness test for filling up the posts of constables in the CBI was cancelled, due to allegations of favouritism on the part of the officers conducting the physical efficiency test and irregularities in the written examination. A challenge to the cancellation failed before the Tribunal upon which proceedings were initiated before the High Court. A committee had been appointed by the Director, CBI, which upon meticulous examination found that 31 candidates who were otherwise ineligible were included in the selection list and an equal number of eligible candidates was ousted. In this backdrop, the High Court found [Rajesh v. Union of India, 2001 SCC OnLine Ker 531] that there was no justification to cancel the entire selection when the impact of irregularities which had crept into the evaluation of merits could be identified specifically and was found on verifying the records to have resulted in 31 candidates being selected undeservedly. 42. Upholding the view of the High Court, a two-Judge Bench of this Court held : (Rajesh P.U. case [Union of India v. Rajesh P.U., (2003) 7 SCC 285 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 1048] , SCC p. 290, para 6) “6. … In the light of the above and in the absence of any specific or categorical finding supported by any 41 concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of an all- pervasive nature, which could be really said to have undermined the very process itself in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of one or the other irregularities, or illegalities, if any, there was hardly any justification in law to deny appointment to the other selected candidates whose selections were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for any one or the other reasons. Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations throwing to the winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the situation. In short, the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational.”.” 23. In further support of this principle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Union of India & Others vs. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu & Another, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 285, held that the adoption of a 42 rigid and arbitrary standard to annul the entire selection process, despite concrete and positive information suggesting that irregularities pertained only to a few candidates, is legally untenable. The Court observed that such a decision displays a blatant disregard for relevant considerations and reflects a complete misdirection of the exercise of discretion by the competent authority. The cancellation of the entire selection, in such circumstances, was held to be excessive, irrational, and grossly disproportionate to the actual irregularities detected. Relevant paragraph is quoted below for ready reference : “6. ……...Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations throwing to the winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the situation. In short, the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational. 7. For all the reasons stated above, we could not find any infirmity whatsoever in the judgment of the High Court which adopted a practical, pragmatic, rational and realistic solution to the problem. The appeal, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed. The interim order earlier granted thus automatically stands revoked. The appointments shall be made within 60 43 days from this day, without any further delay. No costs.” 24. The issue concerning the expiry of the validity period of a selection list has been comprehensively addressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Ram Swarup Saroj, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1097. In this decision, the Court categorically held that the mere expiry of the validity period of selection list cannot be made the sole ground to deny a candidate his or her rightful appointment. The State, as the appointing authority, is not permitted to arbitrarily abandon the process of filling vacancies on the pretext of alleged irregularities, particularly where such irregularities can be objectively segregated from the claims of bona fide candidates. The Hon’ble Court emphasized that it is both lawful and feasible to distinguish between "tainted" and "untainted" candidates, thereby allowing the latter, against whom no allegations of malpractice exist, to be appointed. Relevant paragraph is quoted below for ready reference : “10. Similarly, the plea that a list of selected candidates for appointment to the State services remains valid for a period of one year only is primarily a question depending on facts and yet the plea was not raised before the High Court. Secondly, we find that the select list was finalised in the month of November 1996 and the writ petition was filed by the respondent in the month of October 1997, i.e., before the expiry of one year from the date of the list. Merely because a period of one year has elapsed during the pendency of litigation, we cannot decline to grant the relief to which the respondent has been found entitled by the High Court. We may place on record that during the course of hearing of the SLP before this Court, on 44 29-9-1999 we had directed the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P. to bring on record on affidavit the status of present recruitment of the judicial officers and the present vacancy position in the subordinate judiciary. In the affidavit of the Joint Secretary, Department of Appointment, State Government, Uttar Pradesh sworn in on 4-11-1999 and filed before this Court it is stated that as on 14- 10-1999 there were 231 vacancies existing in the cadre of Munsif Magistrates (now Civil Judge, Junior Division/Judicial Magistrates). That being the factual position we see no reason why the direction made by the High Court should be upset in an appeal preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh.” 25. Applying the principles laid down in the above-mentioned judgments to the facts of the present case, it is evident that even if the version of the respondent-State is accepted in its entirety, the allegations pertain only to a limited number of candidates. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which has taken over the investigation, has filed charge sheets against certain individuals, identifying them as "tainted". However, for the remaining candidates, the CBI has expressly indicated that further investigation is ongoing, and no definitive findings of misconduct have been made against them thus far. In such circumstances, there is no legal or factual justification to deprive candidates, against whom no allegation has been made, and who are not named in the charge sheets, of their appointments. These candidates can be reasonably classified as "untainted". 26. This Court has perused the progress report submitted by the CBI, filed through an affidavit by the competent authority. Upon a detailed 45 examination of the said report, it is apparent that, at this stage, no incriminating material has been found against the selectees other than those who have already been charge-sheeted. It is important to recognize that while some additional names may emerge as "tainted" upon conclusion of the ongoing investigation, the current record does not implicate the majority of selectees. After the case was initially investigated by the State Police and subsequently transferred to the CBI, the investigative agency has exercised due diligence in naming only specific individuals in the charge sheets. Hence, the Court is of the view that the entire selection list cannot be termed as vitiated, and consequently, all selectees cannot be indiscriminately treated as tainted. 27. The core issue before this Court pertains to the appointment of candidates from a selection list that has been subject to allegations of irregularities and subsequent investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The respondent-State authorities have resisted the issuance of appointment letters on the ground that the entire selection list is under doubt. The petitioners, on the other hand, assert that many candidates are innocent and should not be deprived of their legitimate appointments due to the alleged misconduct of a few. 28. Having carefully considered the facts and the progress of the investigation, this Court notes that the CBI has, so far, filed charge sheets only against a limited number of candidates named in the FIR. For the majority of the candidates, no adverse material has been brought on record. The ongoing investigation is yet to conclude, and it remains open whether further names may be added. In such a 46 scenario, a blanket denial of appointment to all candidates on the selection list would be unjust and contrary to the principles of natural justice. 29. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondent-State authorities to proceed with issuance of appointment letters to those candidates who are not named in the charge sheets filed by the CBI and against whom no adverse material presently exists. This direction aims to strike a balance between safeguarding the rights of innocent candidates and preserving the interest of State in ensuring a fair and lawful recruitment process. 30. However, such appointments shall be expressly subject to the outcome of the ongoing CBI investigation. The respondent-State authorities are directed to include a clear and unambiguous clause in the appointment orders stipulating that any adverse findings emerging in the future pursuant to the FIR or investigation may lead to appropriate legal action, (including) but not limited to termination of service. This safeguard ensures that the appointments are not treated as final exoneration or immunity from scrutiny. 31. It is further directed that the appointment letters shall state explicitly that the issuance of appointment should not be construed as conclusive proof of innocence or permanent protection from any allegation that may arise in the course of the investigation. This conditional nature of appointment serves to uphold the principles of fairness and accountability. 32. The Court also takes note that the candidates who are eligible for appointment had submitted their applications within the validity period 47 of the selection list, a fact that must be given due weight by the respondent authorities while implementing this judgment. The vested right of such candidates, arising from their timely application and selection, cannot be lightly brushed aside. 33. This direction of this Court to segregate tainted and untainted candidates respects the constitutional mandate of equality, fairness, and justice. It ensures that innocent candidates are not deprived of their rights due to allegations against others and that the ongoing investigation by the competent authorities is not hampered or prejudiced. The aforesaid exercise of issuing appointment orders be finalized within a period of sixty days. 34. With these observation and direction, these writ petitions stands disposed of. Shayna Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE