Candidate securing higher marks must be considered for preferred cadre and posting based on merit.

The petitioners participated in a recruitment process initiated by an advertisement dated 09.03.2019 for the post of Teacher in "Education (E) Cadre" and "Tribal (T) Cadre"

After qualifying the examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, the petitioners were offered appointments and invited to submit preferences for Cadre and Division

Despite securing marks higher than the cut-off in their respective categories and higher than several private respondents, the petitioners’ claims for the "E Cadre" and their preferred divisions (Raipur and Bilaspur) were bypassed

The State contended that the petitioners were considered for the "T Cadre" because the cut-off for "E Cadre" in the rounds they participated in was higher than their scores

1. Whether the respondent authorities acted arbitrarily and discriminatorily by denying the petitioners appointment in the "E Cadre" and preferential divisions despite them securing higher merit marks than other selected candidates.

The Court applied the fundamental principles of merit-based recruitment and Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits arbitrary discrimination in public employment

The core legal rule derived is that in a public selection process, the administration is bound to adhere to the published merit list and preference criteria; appointing candidates with lower marks over those with higher marks in a preferred cadre without valid justification constitutes a violation of the rule of law

The Court examined a comparative chart of marks obtained by the petitioners against the cut-off marks and the marks of private respondents

It observed a clear discrepancy: for instance, petitioner Siddharth Vaibhaw Dubey secured 62.5 marks against a cut-off of 62.36, and others similarly held higher positions than certain appointees in the "E Cadre"

The Court found that the records supported the petitioners' claim of being overlooked for their preferred cadre and division despite their superior merit

The State’s justification regarding counseling rounds was deemed insufficient to override the primary requirement of merit-based allocation where higher-ranking candidates had expressed a preference for the "E Cadre"

The Court disposed of the writ petitions by granting the petitioners liberty to submit detailed representations to the Director, Directorate of Public Instructions (Respondent No. 2) within 45 days. The Court directed the respondent authority to decide said representations strictly in accordance with the law, specifically keeping in view the merit list and the actual marks secured by the petitioners, within a period of 120 days