News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 86 | 2026:CGHC:5869-DB
Feb. 03, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has allowed a writ appeal challenging the appointment of several Sub Engineers recruited under the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, holding that candidates who did not possess the prescribed educational qualifications on the cut-off date were not legally entitled to hold public office.
The case arose from a 2011 recruitment process for Sub Engineer (Civil) posts, in which 275 vacancies were initially advertised. The selection was conducted by the Chhattisgarh Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal (Vyapam). However, during document verification, serious discrepancies emerged. Several candidates were found to have acquired the required qualifications only after the last date for submission of applications, which was 23 March 2011.
Despite these findings, appointments were made and a total of 383 candidates were ultimately inducted, exceeding the advertised vacancies. Subsequent scrutiny by three departmental committees concluded that at least 89 appointees lacked the mandatory educational qualifications on the cut-off date, rendering their appointments void from inception. While 19 of these candidates vacated their posts, the remaining continued in service.
Aggrieved by the inaction of the State authorities, the appellant sought a writ of quo warranto to challenge the legality of these appointments. A Single Judge had earlier dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of locus standi. The Division Bench, however, disagreed, reiterating that in proceedings seeking a writ of quo warranto, personal interest or standing is immaterial when the appointment itself is contrary to statutory rules.
The Court held that where recruitment rules or the advertisement do not specify any alternative date, eligibility must be assessed with reference to the last date for submission of applications. Any administrative decision permitting candidates to acquire qualifications after this date amounts to an impermissible midstream alteration of eligibility criteria. The Bench observed that such deviations strike at the core of fairness and transparency in public employment.
Rejecting the State’s defence that the number of posts was variable and that final-year candidates were later permitted, the Court ruled that essential qualifications cannot be relaxed through executive instructions when the recruitment rules do not provide for such relaxation. Length of service or subsequent confirmation, the Court clarified, cannot cure an appointment that is illegal at inception.
The Court also noted that criminal proceedings had been initiated against officials involved in the recruitment process, reinforcing the seriousness of the irregularities. It emphasised that permitting ineligible candidates to continue in public service amounts to usurpation of public office and undermines the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity in employment.
Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge and held that appointments of candidates who did not possess the requisite qualifications on the cut-off date could not be sustained in law, reaffirming that adherence to recruitment rules is non-negotiable in public service.
Case Reference : WA No. 661 of 2025, Ravi Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
