Chhattisgarh High Court sets aside reservation pattern in 2023 teachers’ recruitment; appointments remain subject to Supreme Court ruling

The petitioners challenged the State’s 4 May 2023 recruitment advertisement for teaching posts, contending that its district- and division-wise reservation roster allocated an excessive share of vacancies to Scheduled Tribe candidates.

They argued that the roster relied on the 29 November 2012 reservation notification and consequential model rosters, which the High Court had quashed in WPC No. 591 of 2012 and connected cases on 19 September 2022.

The State relied on its reservation policy, the territorial cadres and the inclusion of backlog vacancies.

The Supreme Court had, on 1 May 2023, permitted recruitment and promotion processes to proceed subject to the outcome of the pending proceedings.

Whether the State could rely on the 29 November 2012 notification and consequential model rosters—previously quashed by the High Court—to determine reservation for the recruitment advertised on 4 May 2023

Whether the Supreme Court’s order of 1 May 2023 validated that reservation framework or instead permitted the recruitment process to continue subject to the outcome of the pending proceedings

Whether the recruitment could continue, and appointments already made be protected, while the reservation issue remained pending before the Supreme Court

Under Articles 14 and 16, reservation is an enabling measure subject to constitutional limits; reservation under Article 16(4) should ordinarily not exceed 50%, and any exceptional departure requires a constitutionally sufficient justification (Indra Sawhney v. Union of India; Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Maharashtra).

A roster implements a valid reservation policy but is not an independent source of authority (R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab).

Article 16(4B) recognises carry-forward of unfilled reserved vacancies, but backlog vacancies must derive from a legally valid reservation framework.

A judgment quashing a measure is distinct from an order merely staying its operation; its binding effect is not displaced solely because an appeal or special leave petition is pending.

The Supreme Court’s order permitting recruitment subject to the pending proceedings allowed the process to continue, but did not finally validate the reservation framework.

The Court found that the impugned advertisement relied on the 2012 notification and model rosters that had been quashed in 2022, and that the State had not identified a subsequent, independently valid source authorising the challenged reservation pattern.

The high ST vacancy proportions—including 62.71% for Teacher (E-Cadre), 64.49% for Teacher (T-Cadre), 56.62% for Assistant Teacher (E-Cadre) and 68.42% for Assistant Teacher (T-Cadre)—reinforced the need for a lawful basis; describing vacancies as backlog did not cure the defect if their underlying reservation points arose under the invalidated arrangement.

At the same time, the Supreme Court’s order allowed recruitment to continue, subject to the final outcome of the pending proceedings.

The Court therefore held that the process could not be stopped wholesale, but that appointments and further consequential rights had to remain subject to that outcome.

The advertisement dated 4 May 2023 was quashed insofar as it gave effect to the reservation arrangement founded on the 29 November 2012 notification and the consequential model rosters declared unconstitutional.

The recruitment and promotion processes were permitted to continue in accordance with law and the Supreme Court’s order of 1 May 2023, subject to the final outcome of the pending Supreme Court proceedings.

Appointments already made were not automatically cancelled; future appointment and relevant promotion orders were required expressly to state that they were subject to that outcome.