HAIGRIV PARIHAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010039752025 2026:CGHC:44255-DB
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 976 of 2025
Haigriv Parihar S/o Krishna Kumar Parihar Aged About 36 Years
Resident Of Govindpur, P.O. Govindpur, Kanker, Distt. North Bastar
Kanker C.G.
Address- 3066, Bada Bhawai Nagar, Near Hanuman Mandir, Kota,
Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary/ Upper Secretary
Department Of Culture And Archaeology, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt.
Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
2 - Directorate Of Archaeology And Museum Raipur C.G. Through The
Director, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary,
Shankar Nagar, P.O. Shankar Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
...Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate.
For Respondent-State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl AG.
For Respondent-CGPSC : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Santosh Sharma , Judge
Judgment on Board

2
Per Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice
13.10.2026
Petitioner, in this writ petition, prays for the following reliefs:
1.
“ A . A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of
appropriate nature do issue commanding and
directing the respondents to produce before this
Hon'ble Court 'travaux preparatoires' leading to
enactment of the Rules of 2014 (Chhattisgarh
Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure,
2014) and also all the relevant records pertaining to
the case of the petitioners for its kind perusal.
B . A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of
appropriate nature do issue declaring the
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Rules of
Procedure, 2014 as Ultra Vires to the constitution of
India, and other relevant legislation under which the
same have been framed and also beyond the rule
making authority and in particular Rule 19.2 be
declared illegal, arbitrary as it infringes fundamental
rights of a citizen to be considered and appointed to
a government post and making provisions
extinguishment of such right, in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
C . A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of
appropriate nature do issue quashing the order
dated 02.12.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by the
respondent no.1 being illegal, arbitrary and in effect
direct the respondent authorities to give effect to
the selection process of the petitioner by taking
steps for appointment of the petitioner on the post
of Archaeology Officer.

3
D . Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case.
E . Cost of the petition may also be awarded.”
2. Relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that
pursuant to advertisement dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure P-3)
issued for recruitment to various posts, the petitioner applied for
the post of ‘Archaeology Officer' and participated in the selection
process along-with other candidates. Upon completion of the
selection process, the merit list was published on 17.08.2023
reflecting the name of the petitioner at Serial No.1. After
publication of the merit list, the petitioner was asked to submit the
requisite documents in original for verification, to which, he
submitted the original documents on 04.10.2023 and said
documents were verified and found to be correct vide order dated
09.10.2023 (Annexure P-15 colly). Accordingly, respondent
No.2/Directorate of Archaeology and Museum, Raipur vide its
letter dated 09.10.2023 recommended for issuance of
appointment order in favour of the petitioner to the post of
‘Archaeology Officer’. However, till date no appointment order was
issued in favour of the petitioner by the State Government. Hence,
this writ petition has been filed seeking aforesaid reliefs.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were certain
3.
allegations with regard to the educational qualification of some
candidates, for which, direction was made for detailed enquiry
with regard to the genuineness of the documents submitted by the

4
candidates. However, no allegation was made either in respect of
post of the petitioner or against the petitioner. Thus, there was no
difficulty in issuing the appointment order in favour of the
petitioner for appointment to the post of ‘Archaeology Officer’.
The State Government on the plea that enquiry in respect of the
veracity of the documents submitted by the candidates are under
process, did not issue appointment order in favour of the
petitioner. In the meantime, by operation of Rule 19.2 of the
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure,
2014 (for brevity, ‘Rules of 2014’), the validity of the merit list, in
which, the petitioner’s name found place at Serial No.1 expired.
However, the petitioner made several representations before the
concerned Authority for issuance of the appointment order in his
favour; lastly the petitioner made a representation on 22.08.2024
which was rejected vide order dated 02.12.2024 (Annexure P-2)
stating inter-alia that the validity of the merit list prepared pursuant
to the selection test held in terms of advertisement under
Annexure- P/3 had already expired. Hence, case of the petitioner
for appointment to the post of ‘Archaeology Officer’ could not be
considered. Learned Counsel further submits that due to serious
laches and negligence on the part of the State Government, no
appointment order could be issued in favour of the petitioner
despite recommendation of respondent No.2/Directorate to issue
the appointment order in his favour. Thus, the petitioner should
not have made to suffer for the laches on the part of the State

5
Government. Therefore, petitioner prays for a direction to issue
the appointment order in his favour at the earliest, if necessary by
declaring the Rules 19.2 of the Rules of 2014 to be ultra vires.
Learned Additional Advocate General, by referring to the reply
4.
filed by the State Government, submits that due to certain
allegations made in respect of some of the candidates with regard
to submission of forged documents, a verification process was
initiated and due to continuance of the verification process, no
appointment order could be issued to any of the candidates
including the petitioner within the validity period of the merit list.
The enquiry was completed only on 04.06.2024 and on the same
day, a report was also submitted by respondent No.2/Directorate
after verification of the documents of the candidates. Thus, the
respondents-State have no role in not issuing the appointment
order in favour of the petitioner within one year from the date of
publication of the merit list. The State Government also requested
the respondent No.3/CGPSC to extend the validity period of the
merit list, which was not allowed in view of the provision under
Rule 19.2 of the Rules of 2014. Hence, the State Government
cannot be said to have been at fault for not issuing the
appointment order in favour of the petitioner in time.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/CGPSC submits that the
rules have been framed by the CGPSC for smooth conduct of
different selection process. Rule 19.2 of the Rules 2014 is
applicable to all candidates and to all selection process. There

6
was no deviation in respect of the petitioner. He further submits
that by the time a prayer was made for extension of validity period
of merit list, the enquiry which was being conducted by
respondent No.2/Directorate was not complete. Since the
petitioner does not challenge the merit list, the respondent no.3
has no say in the matter. Further, respondent No.3/CGPSC has
no role to play in not issuing the appointment order in favour of the
petitioner in time.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the record, it is apparent that the merit list was published on
17.08.2023 by respondent No.3/CGPSC. In terms of Rule 19.2 of
the Rules of 2014, the validity period of such merit list was one
year from the date of publication. After verification of documents,
respondent No.2/Directorate had also recommended for issuance
of necessary appointment order in favour of the petitioner on
09.10.2023 to the State Government as he was at Serial No.1 in
the merit list. However, in the meantime some allegations were
made against some of the candidates for submitting of forged
documents, for which, an enquiry was being conducted by
respondent No.2. It is not disputed that no allegation was made
either in respect of post of the petitioner or against the petitioner.
The documents of petitioner was verified and found to be correct.
Thus, there was no difficulty on the part of the State Government

7
in acting upon the recommendation made by respondent No.2 and
to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner, when the
merit list published by respondent No.3 was valid. On the plea of
the enquiry being conducted, no appointment order was issued in
favour of the petitioner. It appears from the undisputed facts that
petitioner was no way responsible for the delay in issuance of the
appointment order in his favour. The appointment order was
probably not issued due to pendency of the enquiry being
conducted on the allegations against some of the candidates and
not against the petitioner. Issuance of appointment order in favour
of the petitioner was unnecessarily delayed, resulting in the expiry
of the validity of the merit list and ultimately, no appointment order
could be issued in favour of the petitioner. As such, State
Government should have issued the appointment order in favour
of the petitioner at once after receiving the recommendation from
the respondent no.3 following due procedure.
In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that
8.
the petitioner has no contribution for the delay in issuance of the
appointment order in his favour and no plausible ground has been
shown by the State Government for delay in issuance of
appointment order in favour of the petitioner for appointment to
the post of the ‘Archaeology Officer’. Hence, this Court directs that
the appointment order in respect of the petitioner for the post of
‘Archaeology Officer’ shall be issued at once following due
procedure, if there is no other legal impediments.

8
It is made clear that the entire exercise shall be completed within
9.
a period of ‘four weeks’ and the decision taken shall be duly
communicated to the petitioner. It is further made clear that in
view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the
discussion made above, the prayer for declaring Rule 19.2 of the
Rules 2014 to be ultra vires is not required to be considered.
10. In the result, order dated 02.12.2024 (Annexure P-2) is hereby
quashed and the writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

d Sd/- Sd/-
(Santosh Sharma) (Krushna Ram Mohapatra)
Judge Chief Justice
Jamal.