JYOTI PORTEY vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1
2026:CGHC:10450-DB

2026:CGHC:10450-DB
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 44 of 2026
1 - Jyoti Portey D/o Tek Singh Portey Aged About 29 Years R/o
House No 62, Kansara, Ghanaghat, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
2 - Jay Mohan Pradhan S/o Gurucharan Pradhan Aged About 32
Years R/o Sukulbhathli, Tadola, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3 - Churamani Sahu S/o Holu Ram Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o
Plot No. 06, Janki Chhaya, Near Manav Petrol Pump, Dhanora,
District Durg, Chhattisgarh
4 - Dinesh Kumar Sharma S/o Bimbadhar Das Aged About 30 Years
R/o Village Jhariyapali, Tehsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
5 - Yogesh Kumar Mahilange S/o Surendra Kumar Mahilange Aged
About 26 Years R/o Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
6 - Shashikala D/o Kameshwar Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o
Parwatipur, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

2
2026:CGHC:10450-DB
7 - Nidhi Netam D/o Suresh Kumar Netam Aged About 26 Years R/o
Nichepara, Abhanpur, Kanker, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh
8 - Yashwant Ghritlahare S/o Thanwar Ghritlahare Aged About 34
Years R/o Quarter No. 8/437, Hospital Line, Kalibadi Chowk, Near
Degree Girls College, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
9 - Kanti Kumar S/o Labho Ram Aged About 32 Years R/o Dharashiv,
Tehsil Lavan, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh
10 - Vashu Dubey S/o Basant Kumar Dubey Aged About 27 Years
R/o 8/918, Ward No. 7, Teachers Colony, Kawardha, District
Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
11 - Ajeet S/o Bajaru Aged About 27 Years R/o House No 1, Kumhar
Para, Ward No 15, Near Chandi Mandir, Kawardha, District
Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
12 - Gopal Prasad Sahu S/o Bhagwat Prasad Sahu Aged About 32
Years R/o Birkona, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
13 - Churamani Patel S/o Luk Ram Patel Aged About 35 Years R/o
Sarapanch Chowk, Mauhapali, Kharsiya, Raigarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
14 - Arvind Saurabh S/o Munna Prasad Aged About 31 Years R/o
Azad Nagar, Dalli-Rajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh

3
2026:CGHC:10450-DB
15 - Ved Prakash Mandavi S/o Kanas Ram Mnadavi Aged About 26
Years Ward No 7, Dokala, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
--- Appellants
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Home (Police), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal
Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director General Of Police, Police
Headquarters, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Appointment Committee,
Formed Under Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Non-Gazetted)
Service Recruitment Rules 2021, And In Lieu Of Advertisement
Dated 01-10-2021 Police Headquarters, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Adgp (Administration), Police
Headquarters, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WA No. 89 of 2026
1 - Dinesh Kumar Sharma S/o Bimbadhar Das Aged About 30 Years
R/o Village Jhariyapali, Tehsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh

4
2026:CGHC:10450-DB
2 - Yogesh Kumar Mahilange S/o Surendra Kumar Mahilange Aged
About 26 Years R/o Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Home (Police), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal
Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director General Of Police, Police
Head Quarters, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Appointment Committee,
Formed Under Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Non-Gazetted)
Service Recruitment Rules 2021, And In Lieu Of Advertisement
Dated 01-10-2021 Police Headquarters, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Adgp (Administration), Police
Headquarters, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)

For Appellants : Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Advocate appears
on behalf of Shri Sabyasachi Bhaduri,
Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

5
2026:CGHC:10450-DB
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
28.02.2026
1. Heard Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Senior Advocate along
with Shri Sabyasachi Bhaduri, learned counsel for the
appellants. Also heard Shri S.S. Baghel, learned Govt. Advocate
for the State.
2. Since both the appeals arising out of common order passed
by the learned Single Judge and involves similar facts and
grounds, they are being considered and decided by this
common order.
3. The present Intra Court appeals have been preferred against
the common order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge in WPS No. 2475/2025 and other connected
matter, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants/writ
petitioners were partly allowed.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as
per their status before the writ Court.
5. Writ Appeal No. 44/2026 has been filed with the following
prayer:-

6
2026:CGHC:10450-DB
A. To set aside the judgment and order dated
26.11.2025 passed in WPS 2475/2025.
B. To direct the Respondents to publish a post-
advertisement vacancy chart showing all vacancies
arising under the Advertisement dated 01.10.2021
on account of non-joining, resignation,
disqualification, or any other lapse of selected
candidates;
C. To direct the respondents to fill up the vacancy
published in the earlier advertisement dated
01.10.2021.
D. To direct that no vacancy relatable to the
sanctioned cadre strength advertised on 01.10.2021
shall be filled through the subsequent Advertisement
dated 21.10.2024, until all vacancies from the 2021
recruitment are duly exhausted.
E. Any other relief(s) in favor of Petitioner as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the
facts and circumstances of the case.
6. Writ Appeal No. 89/2026 has been filed with the following
prayer:-
“A. To set aside the judgment and order dated
26.11.2025 passed in WPS 8595/2025.

7
2026:CGHC:10450-DB
B. To direct the respondents to fill the said 108
vacancies from the existing waitlist, and not through
any subsequent recruitment process.
C. To restrain the respondents from filling,
reallocating, or otherwise diverting the aforesaid 108
vacancies to the recruitment initiated under
Advertisement dated 21.10.2024 or any other
subsequent process.
D. Any other relief(s) in favor of petitioner as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the
facts and circumstances of the case.”
7. The brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioners
(appellants in WA No.44 of 2026) in WPS No. 2475/2025 (Jyoti
Portey & Ors. V State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) are that, the
petitioners are aspirants in the recruitment process on the
post of Subedar, Platoon Commander and Sub Inspector
(Special Branch, Finger Prints, Questioned Documents,
Computer & Radio) initiated by the respondent department
for recruitment on 975 different posts through the
advertisement published on 01.10.2021. The recruitment
process was to be conducted in a phased manner comprising
multiple stages of assessment, preliminary examination,
mains examination, physical efficiency test and interview. The

8
2026:CGHC:10450-DB
entire selection process including conducting examination,
valuation of candidates and preparation of merit list was to be
carried out under the provisions of The Chhattisgarh Police
Executive (Non Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2021 (in
short, the Rules, 2021). The advertisement dated 01.10.2021
was also issued under the said Rules, 2021. The petitioners
filled up their application form and participated in the
recruitment process. The preliminary examination was
conducted on 29.01.2023 and on 22.02.2023 the respondent
department declared the result of preliminary examination
and candidates were shortlisted for mains examination. The
mains examination was conducted in between 26.05.2023 and
29.05.2023. The petitioners were qualified in mains
examination also and became eligible to participate in the
physical efficiency test. The said physical efficiency test was to
be held in between 18.07.2023 and 30.07.2023 and thereafter
they were qualified for personal interview. The petitioners also
appeared in personal interview conducted between
17.08.2023 and 08.09.2023 and final merit list was to be
prepared by the respondent department. The final list of
successful candidates were published on 20.10.2024, however,

9
2026:CGHC:10450-DB
the petitioners name were not shown in the final list. It is the
case of petitioners that respondent department have also
subsequently published the cutoff marks applicable for all
categories of post in accordance with the prescribed
recruitment rules. Despite competition of selection process,
the respondent department published only merit list of
selected candidates without providing overall rank of all the
candidates participated in the selection process. The selected
candidates were thereafter granted appointment on
03.03.2025. Despite making application under Right to
Information Act, 2005 for disclosure of final merit list of all the
candidates who appeared in the selection process along with
waitlist, no information were supplied to the candidates by
the respondents. On 24.03.2025 they submitted their
representation to the respondent No.4 for publication of final
merit list and the waitlist of all the candidates under the Rules,
2021, but their representations were also unanswered then
present writ petitions have been filed.
8. The facts of the case as projected by the petitioners
(appellants in WA No.89 of 2026) in WPS No.8595/2025
(Dinesh Kumar Sharma & Anr. V State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.)

10
2026:CGHC:10450-DB
are that they were also aspirants on the recruitment process
of 975 posts in different category of Subedar, Platoon
Commander and Sub Inspector (Special Branch, Finger Prints,
Questioned Documents, Computer & Radio) initiated by the
respondent department under the advertisement dated
01.10.2021 which was to be carried out under the provisions
of the Rules, 2021. The petitioners participated in the
preliminary examination held on 29.01.2023, mains
examination held in between 26.05.2023 and 29.05.2023 and
physical efficiency test conducted between 18.07.2023 and
30.07.2023 and appeared in interview also conducted
between 17.08.2023 and 08.09.2023. When the final list was
published, the name of petitioners were not reflected. The
overall ranking of all the candidates participated in the
selection process were also not published by the department.
Even after making application under the Right to Information
Act for disclosure of final merit list and wait list of all the
candidates who participated in the selection process, if any,
the same was not disclosed by the department. Challenging
the action of respondent authority, the present petitioners
who are also petitioners No.4 & 5 (in WPS No.2475 of 2025)

11
2026:CGHC:10450-DB
had already filed WPS No.2475 of 2025, however, during
pendency of that writ petition, the respondent authorities
have issued another advertisement dated 21.10.2024 through
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Raipur for
appointment on 341 posts of Subedar/Sub Inspector/Platoon
Commander (Home/Police Department) and therefore they
claimed for setting aside the impugned advertisement dated
21.10.2024 and to direct the respondent authority to fill up the
vacancy published in the earlier advertisement dated
01.10.2021.
9. In WPS No. 2475/2025, the respondent/State filed their return
and submitted that after completion of all phases of
examination the final select list was published by the
department on 28.10.2024. Out of total 975 advertised posts,
the select list was published for 959 posts. The marks
obtained by 1436 candidates were already uploaded in the
official website of the police department on 05.11.2024 and
information is available on the website of the department. The
final select list has already been annexed by the petitioners
themselves along with writ petition as Annexure P/6 & P/8. So
far as wait list is concerned, rule 12 of Rules, 2021 provides

12
2026:CGHC:10450-DB
that publication of final select list is mandatory, however, rule
12(2) of Rules, 2021 provides only preparation of wait list. The
language of both these rules i.e. rule 12(1) and (2) of Rules,
2021 make it clear that rule 12(2) of Rules, 2021 is directory in
nature which provides only preparation of wait list and in
compliance thereof, the selection committee has already
prepared the wait list. It is also submitted by the State in the
return that on 21.10.2024 a new advertisement of 341 posts of
Subedar/Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander have been
issued and recruitment process is going on. Since new
advertisement dated 21.10.2024 is published and recruitment
process is already initiated for filling up of 341 posts, the State
Govt. has decided not to fill up the vacant posts remained
under the advertisement dated 01.10.2021 and from the waist
list of that recruitment process. It is also submitted that mere
inclusion of the name of the candidates in the select list/wait
list will not give any indefeasible right to the candidates to be
appointed on the posts. Since the State Govt. has already
initiated selection process and issued fresh advertisement for
filling up of 341 posts and decided not to fill up the vacancy
from the wait list, no direction can be issued to the

13
2026:CGHC:10450-DB
respondent/State.
10. After considering the rival contentions of both the parties and
on the basis of material available on record, the learned Single
Judge partly allowed the writ petitions by the order impugned
and has observed as under:-
“21. Considering the pleadings made in the writ petitions,
the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties
and also considering the judgments of Supreme Court in
the above referred cases, this court is of the considered
opinion that the respondent authority can only be
directed for publication of wait list, however, the
candidates cannot claim as a matter of right to be
appointed on the vacant post under advertisement dated
01.10.2021. Further, fresh advertisement has also been
issued on 21.10.2024 and the candidates may participate
in the fresh recruitment process under the said
advertisement. Therefore, except the claim of publication
of wait list, the other reliefs are rejected.
22. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are partly allowed
to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to costs.”
11. (a) Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the
learned Single Judge failed to exercise jurisdiction vested
under Article 226 of the Constitution by not calling for or
examining the essential recruitment records, despite specific
allegations of arbitrariness, mala fide exercise of power, and

14
2026:CGHC:10450-DB
colourable exercise of authority. The State’s stand regarding
the 2024 advertisement, non-operation of the waitlist, and
treatment of unfilled 2021 vacancies was accepted without
production of cadre strength, vacancy position, finance
sanction, file notings, or other contemporaneous material.
Judicial review requires scrutiny of the decision-making
process, not mere acceptance of executive assertions. The
learned Single Judge erroneously treated the issue as one of
executive policy, whereas the core question was purely legal
whether the State could abandon an ongoing recruitment
process, despite preparation of a waitlist and availability of
admitted vacancies, without assigning reasons or producing
the underlying record. Such refusal to examine the legality of
the action amounts to abdication of jurisdiction.
(b) It is further submitted that grave prejudice has been
caused to the appellants due to the State’s own delay in
keeping the 2021 recruitment pending for nearly four years,
during which several candidates have crossed the upper age
limit and lost future opportunities. The State cannot be
permitted to take advantage of its own inaction. Material
information including the complete merit list, waitlist, vacancy

15
2026:CGHC:10450-DB
data, and details of non-joining was withheld despite repeated
RTI requests, preventing timely legal recourse. The impugned
order itself records that Rule 12(2) mandates publication of a
waitlist, acknowledges that a waitlist was prepared, and notes
that vacancies remained due to non-joining and resignations;
yet the Court declined to direct operation of the waitlist. This
internal inconsistency renders the reasoning unsustainable
and contrary to the statutory scheme under Rules 12, 13 and
14 of the 2021 Rules.
(c) Learned counsel further submits that issuance of the
fresh advertisement dated 21.10.2024 for 341 posts, while the
2021 recruitment remained incomplete with existing
vacancies and a prepared waitlist, is arbitrary and violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The State cannot initiate
a parallel recruitment for the same posts without exhausting
the earlier process or demonstrating bona fide administrative
necessity, which has neither been disclosed nor examined.
Denying consideration to candidates who completed all
stages of selection, while permitting fresh entrants to
compete, amounts to unequal treatment and violates Article
16(1). The appellants, having undergone the entire multi-

16
2026:CGHC:10450-DB
stage selection process, had a legitimate expectation that the
recruitment would be concluded in accordance with law. The
impugned order, having failed to examine these constitutional
and statutory dimensions, is liable to be set aside.
(d) Learned counsel for the appellant lastly contended that
rule 12(2) of Rules, 2021 clearly provides preparation of wait
list of 25 percent of the posts from the real vacancies by
following the rules of reservation. Although, it is not
mentioned in rule 12(2) of Rules, 2021 that wait list should
also be published, but in all fairness, it has to be published in
consonance with rule 12(1) of Rules, 2021 that final merit list,
if published, the wait list should also be published. The
candidates have a right to know their position in the merit list
or wait list so that they may claim their right, if any illegality or
infirmity found in the list. Mere preparation of wait list and not
publishing the same amounts to non preparation of wait list
which is violative of rule 12(2) of the Rules, 2021. The
candidate does not know whose name are there in the wait
list and who are going to be picked up from the said wait list.
Although, appointment from wait list is not indefeasible right
of the petitioners or wait list candidates, but they have right to

17
2026:CGHC:10450-DB
know about their position in the wait list. He would also
submit that from the conjoint reading of rule 12(1) and (2) of
the Rules, 2021, both these lists i.e. merit list as well as wait
list are required to be published. The State has to show a
reasonable ground for exercising their jurisdiction of non
appointing the candidates of wait list if there was already
posts vacant under the advertisement dated 01.10.2021. He
would rely upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Vivek Kaisth and Another Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh & Others, 2024 (2) SCC 269.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the
submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and
submitted that after appreciating the entire facts and
circumstances of the case in its true perspective the learned
Single Judge has rightly passed the order impugned. He
would submit that Rule 12(2) of Rules, 2021 does not provide
publication of wait list. The only list to be published is the
select list as provided under rule 12(1) of the Rules, 2021. Rule
12(2) of the Rules, 2021 provides only preparation of select list
which the respondent authorities have prepared. He would
refer to document dated 04.11.2024 which discloses that

18
2026:CGHC:10450-DB
under the provisions of rule 12(2) of the Rules, 2021, the wait
list of 25 percent of total advertised post have been prepared
after following the reservation guidelines. The petitioners
have no indefeasible right to be appointed on the advertised
post. The State Govt. has issued a fresh notification dated
21.10.2024 for appointment on the total 341 posts of
Subedar/Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander and the State
Govt. has decided not fill up the vacant posts remain unfilled
under the advertisement dated 01.10.2021. He also submits
that the select list was valid only for one year from the date of
its issuance as provided under rule 13(3) of the Rules, 2021.
The petitioners have made their application under Right to
Information Act for disclosure of wait list on 24.12.2024 and in
response to that it was disclosed that wait list is not published
as provided under the relevant provisions of the Rules, 2021.
The first appeal filed by the petitioners have also been
disposed of on 29.01.2025 by the first appellate authority. He
would pray for dismissal of both the writ appeals.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available in the record.
14. The learned Single Judge, after considering the pleadings,

19
2026:CGHC:10450-DB
statutory provisions and binding precedents of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, has recorded a clear finding that though Rule
12(2) of the 2021 Rules mandates preparation of a wait list, it
does not impose any statutory obligation upon the State to
operate such wait list or to fill up all advertised vacancies. The
Court specifically held that inclusion in the merit list or wait
list does not confer any indefeasible right of appointment and
that advertisement is merely an invitation to apply.
15. In view of the settled law that the employer retains discretion
to decide whether or not to fill vacancies, subject to non-
arbitrariness, the learned Single Judge found no legal duty
cast upon the State to exhaust the wait list. Accordingly,
except to the extent of directing publication of the wait list in
the interest of transparency, all other reliefs were rightly
rejected.
16. The decision of the State to close the 2021 recruitment after
issuance of final merit list for 959 posts and to carry forward
remaining vacancies in the subsequent advertisement dated
21.10.2024 falls within the executive domain. In absence of
any statutory mandate requiring compulsory filling of
vacancies from the wait list, and there being no material to

20
2026:CGHC:10450-DB
establish mala fide or arbitrariness, judicial interference was
held to be unwarranted. The learned Single Judge thus
exercised jurisdiction properly and granted only limited relief
consistent with law.
17. In these circumstances, both the writ appeals do not disclose
any perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional error in the
findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. The
conclusions are based on settled principles governing public
employment and discretion of the State in matters of filling
vacancies. The appeals, therefore, being devoid of merit,
deserve to be dismissed.
18. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we are of the
considered view that while passing the order impugned, the
learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality,
irregularity or jurisdictional error. The same is just and proper,
warranting no interference of this Court.
19. Accordingly, both the writ appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-

(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Jyoti/Shoaib