State-caused delay cannot defeat a selected candidate’s appointment after merit-list expiry.

The petitioner applied for the post of Archaeology Officer pursuant to an advertisement dated 31 May 2023. His name appeared at serial No. 1 in the merit list published on 17 August 2023. After his documents were verified and found correct, the Directorate recommended his appointment on 9 October 2023.

The State did not issue an appointment order while an enquiry was conducted into allegations of forged documents against other candidates; the petitioner was not implicated, and his documents were not in question.

The merit list was valid for one year under Rule 19.2 of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 2014. After the list expired, the State rejected the petitioner’s representation on 2 December 2024 on that ground.

He sought, among other reliefs, quashing of that decision, a direction for appointment, and a declaration that Rule 19.2 was ultra vires.

Whether the State could withhold consideration of the petitioner’s appointment until the merit list expired, where his documents had been verified and the enquiry concerned other candidates.

Whether Rule 19.2 of the 2014 Rules should be declared ultra vires.

Rule 19.2 of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 2014, provided that a merit list remained valid for one year from its publication.

The Court applied the principle that a candidate should not be prejudiced by administrative delay for which the candidate was not responsible, particularly where the candidate’s eligibility documents had been verified and the pending enquiry related to other candidates.

The Court found that the petitioner’s documents had been verified and the Directorate had recommended his appointment while the merit list was still valid.

The enquiry concerned allegations against other candidates, and there was no allegation against the petitioner or his candidature. The petitioner was therefore not responsible for the delay, and the State had shown no plausible ground for withholding his appointment pending that enquiry.

In light of those findings, the Court considered it unnecessary to decide the challenge to Rule 19.2.

It directed the State to issue the petitioner’s appointment order for the post of Archaeology Officer, following due procedure and provided there was no other legal impediment. The exercise was to be completed within four weeks, with the decision communicated to the petitioner.

The Court did not rule on the validity of Rule 19.2.