CG High Court News: The Chhattisgarh High Court has delivered a significant verdict regarding government recruitment. The Court clearly stated that appointments to new posts created after the completion of a recruitment process cannot be made from the old selection or waiting list. Doing so violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as it infringes upon the rights of candidates who become eligible at a later stage.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal upheld the dismissal of Akhilesh (a peon) and Sushma Thakur (a teacher)—both employed at a middle school in Balrampur-Ramanujganj district—while dismissing their writ appeal.
Recruitment Rules: What is the case about?
The matter dates back to 2012, when the Tribal Welfare Department issued an advertisement to recruit peons and Assistant Grade-3 staff. After the recruitment process concluded and the selection list was released, the department made appointments to certain additionally created posts using the same old waiting list. Akhilesh and Sushma Thakur were appointed on this basis. Later, these appointments were cancelled on the grounds that they violated the rules; both individuals challenged this decision in the High Court.
What did the High Court say?
The division bench stated that filling future posts from an old selection or waiting list after the recruitment process has ended is entirely illegal. The Court clarified that an illegal appointment does not become legal merely due to an official’s error or the fact that an employee has served for several years. The Court observed that such appointments violate the rights of young people who became eligible later and should have had the opportunity to apply.
Citing Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
In its verdict, the High Court stated that all eligible candidates must receive equal opportunities in government jobs. If new posts are filled from an old selection panel, candidates who become eligible later would be unable to apply at all. This runs counter to the spirit of Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 16 (Equal Opportunity in Public Employment) of the Constitution. Court Reaffirms Three Key Principles
Government Jobs: In its verdict, the High Court reiterated three crucial principles regarding government recruitment—
Appointments restricted to advertised posts
The recruitment process is limited solely to the posts for which an advertisement has been issued. A fresh recruitment process must be adopted for any new posts created subsequently.
Backdoor appointments not permissible
The Court stated that any backdoor appointment made by bypassing rules violates fundamental constitutional principles and cannot be deemed valid.
Long service does not validate an illegal appointment
Even if an employee has served for several years, an appointment made in violation of the rules cannot be considered valid merely on the basis of the duration of service.
Emphasis on transparency in the recruitment process
This High Court verdict is viewed as a significant step towards ensuring transparency and equal opportunity in the government recruitment process. The Court has sent a clear message that appointments to government jobs must always align with established rules and constitutional provisions.
