Chhattisgarh High Court Rules: No Vested Right to Promotion via Flawed Exam Process

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 229 | 2026:CGHC:15337

In a significant judgment reinforcing the supremacy of statutory recruitment rules over administrative errors, the High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the cancellation of a departmental promotion exam for the post of Inspector in Legal Metrology. The Court ruled that mere participation in a recruitment exercise does not grant candidates an indefeasible right to appointment or even the declaration of results.

The legal battle began when several Assistant Grade-III employees, including Achinta Bhowmik and others, applied for promotional posts following a 2021 advertisement. While the initial notification required only a simple graduation degree, the state authorities later realized this criteria contradicted the Central Government’s Legal Metrology (General) Rules, 2011. Those central rules mandate a Bachelor of Science in Physics or a degree in Engineering for the Inspector role.

Although the petitioners were allowed to sit for the exam on December 17, 2022, under an interim court order, the state government cancelled the entire process in January 2023 before results could be announced. The state subsequently amended its own recruitment rules to align with federal standards and issued a fresh advertisement in August 2023.

Representing the petitioners, counsel A.N. Bhakta argued that the state was “changing the rules of the game after the game had begun”. He contended that because the recruitment process started under the older, more lenient rules, the new Physics requirement should not apply retrospectively.

However, Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad rejected this premise. The Court noted that the “rules of the game” doctrine cannot be used to force the state to perpetuate an illegality. Since the original advertisement was inconsistent with the parent Central Act, the state was not only empowered but duty-bound to halt the process to ensure statutory compliance.

“The selection process had not culminated in a final select list,” Justice Prasad observed, noting that the petitioners’ claims remained at the stage of mere participation. Relying on landmark Supreme Court precedents, the judgment clarified that even inclusion in a merit list does not create a vested right to a post, let alone simply sitting for an entrance test.

The Court further noted that while the Union Government had granted a one-time relaxation for certain vacancies in late 2025, that relief was specifically reserved for processes that had not yet been initiated. Consequently, the petitioners could not bypass the mandatory educational requirements. By dismissing the petitions, the High Court has affirmed that administrative fairness must always operate within the framework of established law.

Case Reference : In the case of WPS No. 7387 of 2022 (Achinta Bhowmik and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), the petitioners were represented by advocates Mr. A.N. Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta, while the State was represented by Additional Advocate General Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur.