Candidates with higher merit must be considered for preferred cadres and postings over lower-ranked candidates.

The petitioners participated in a recruitment process initiated by the Director, Directorate of Public Instructions on 09.03.2019 for the post of Teacher in various cadres (E-cadre and T-cadre)

Upon qualifying in the merit list, the petitioners were invited to provide preferences for either the Education Department (E-cadre) or the Tribal Department (T-cadre) and their preferred divisions

Despite securing higher marks than certain private respondents, the petitioners’ claims for E-cadre and their preferred divisional postings (such as Raipur and Bilaspur) were bypassed, and they were instead offered appointments in the T-cadre

The State contended that the petitioners' marks were below the cut-off for the E-cadre during the first round of counseling

1. Whether the respondent authorities acted discriminatorily by denying the petitioners appointment in the E-cadre and their preferred divisions despite them securing higher marks than candidates who were granted such placements

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a fresh consideration of their candidature based on their merit and preference

The Court applied the fundamental principle of merit-based selection in public employment, emphasizing that recruitment must be conducted strictly in accordance with the merit list and the rules of the selection process

The Court implicitly relied on the principles of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which mandate non-arbitrariness and equality of opportunity in matters of public appointments, ensuring that higher-ranking candidates are not overlooked in favor of lower-ranking candidates without valid justification

The Court examined the comparative merit chart provided by the petitioners, which demonstrated that in several instances, the petitioners’ marks (e.g., Siddharth Vaibhaw Dubey at 62.5 or Moolshanker Sahu at 64.362) were higher than the marks obtained by private respondents who received their preferred placements

The Court observed that while the State argued the cut-off marks for E-cadre were higher during the initial counseling, the record suggested a discrepancy where candidates with lesser marks were considered for E-cadre and preferential postings over the petitioners

Consequently, the Court found that the petitioners' claims required a merits-based re-evaluation by the competent authority to ensure that the recruitment process adhered to the established merit sequence

The Court directed the said authority to decide the representations strictly in accordance with the law, keeping the merit list and secured marks in view, within a period of 120 days

No specific order for immediate appointment was issued, but a mandatory review of the petitioners’ grievances was directed