Recruiting authorities cannot enlarge notified eligibility by treating Horticulture as equivalent to Agriculture after advertisement.

The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) issued an advertisement dated 10 June 2020 for recruitment to the post of Assistant Director (Agriculture), prescribing a postgraduate degree in Agriculture from a recognised Agricultural University as the essential qualification.

Five vacancies were reserved for persons with disabilities, including one vacancy for the OBC-PwD category and two for the open-PwD category.

Hitesh Sonkar, possessing postgraduate qualifications in Agriculture and belonging to the OBC-PwD hearing-handicapped category, participated in the selection and stood second in the OBC-PwD merit position.

Bhujbal Singh, who possessed a postgraduate degree in Horticulture, was nevertheless treated as eligible and selected for the post.

Sonkar challenged the final selection list dated 6 February 2021, contending that Horticulture was not the prescribed qualification and that the CGPSC had incorrectly operated the horizontal reservation categories.

Bhujbal Singh separately challenged the denial of appointment to him after the High Court directed that one post be kept vacant during the pendency of Sonkar’s petition.

He contended that, being higher in merit than Richa Dubey, he should have been appointed and that the interim order had been misconstrued by the authorities.

The State and CGPSC argued that Horticulture was equivalent to Agriculture and that the selection and reservation process had been conducted in accordance with the applicable rules and expert-committee recommendations.

Whether a candidate possessing a postgraduate degree in Horticulture, rather than a postgraduate degree in Agriculture, satisfied the essential educational qualification prescribed for Assistant Director (Agriculture)?

Whether the CGPSC could recognise Horticulture as an equivalent qualification after issuance of the advertisement and commencement of the recruitment process?

Whether the CGPSC improperly operated the horizontal reservation roster by placing a more-meritorious OBC-PwD candidate in the OBC-PwD category instead of the open-PwD category?

Whether Bhujbal Singh was entitled to appointment on the basis of his merit position notwithstanding the interim order directing that one post be kept vacant?

The Court applied the Chhattisgarh Agriculture Services (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2011, and Clause 4(ka) of the advertisement, which required a postgraduate degree in Agriculture from a recognised Agricultural University.

It applied the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 2014, as amended, particularly Rule 17.6 and Rules 17.6.1.1–17.6.1.3, prescribing the sequential method for identifying candidates under unreserved female, unreserved open, PwD and ex-servicemen categories.

The Court relied principally on the Constitution Bench decision in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, (2025) 2 SCC 1, for the rule that the eligibility criteria or “rules of the game” ordinarily cannot be altered after commencement of the recruitment process unless authorised by the governing rules or advertisement, and even then the alteration must satisfy Article 14.

The Court also recognised Article 16’s guarantee of equality of opportunity in public employment and the principle that horizontal reservation must be implemented according to the applicable statutory roster and procedure, not merely on the basis of comparative marks.

The advertisement expressly required a postgraduate degree in Agriculture, not merely a postgraduate degree obtained from an Agricultural University. Since Bhujbal Singh admittedly possessed a postgraduate degree in Horticulture, he did not satisfy the notified qualification.

The subsequent expert-committee opinion treating Agriculture and Horticulture as equivalent could not enlarge the eligibility conditions after the recruitment process had commenced, particularly because neither the Recruitment Rules nor the advertisement authorised such a subsequent addition.

The Court distinguished between interpreting an ambiguous qualification and introducing a new qualification into an unambiguous advertisement. Accordingly, the expert opinion could not cure the legal defect in Bhujbal Singh’s candidature.

On the reservation issue, the Court held that the petitioner had not produced the comparative roster, vacancy calculations, category-wise break-up or other material demonstrating that Rule 17.6 had been violated.

Comparative marks alone could not establish an unlawful application of horizontal reservation, because category adjustment depended on the statutory sequence and roster methodology.

Consequently, although the Court accepted that the cited authorities stated applicable principles, those authorities did not assist the petitioner in the absence of proof that the CGPSC had departed from Rule 17.6.

Since Bhujbal Singh was ineligible, the final selection list had to be recast by considering only eligible candidates.

The challenge to the CGPSC’s reservation methodology was rejected because no specific violation of Rule 17.6 or incorrect roster implementation had been demonstrated.

WPS No. 6226 of 2022, filed by Bhujbal Singh, was dismissed.

WPS No. 92 of 2022, filed by Hitesh Sonkar, was disposed of with a direction to the CGPSC to recast the final selection list of eligible candidates for Assistant Director (Agriculture) in accordance with law.