Chhattisgarh high court upholds appointments for untainted candidates in CGPSC 2021 recruitment

RAIPUR: In a major relief to candidates selected through the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) 2021 examination, the Chhattisgarh High Court division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru on Thursday upheld the single bench’s July 29 order. The order directed the state govt to proceed with appointments of candidates not named in CBI charge sheets or against whom no adverse material exists. Emphasising that a blanket denial of appointments to all candidates, including those untainted by the ongoing investigation, would amount to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the bench dismissed the state’s writ appeals as devoid of merit.The case stemmed from the CGPSC 2021 recruitment process, which advertised 171 posts across key state services such as deputy collector, deputy superintendent of police, and superintendent of district jail. After a transparent three-stage selection process — prelims, mains, and interviews — the final merit list was published on May 11, 2023.However, the process soon came under scrutiny following allegations of irregularities, favouritism, and corruption, triggered by a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a sitting MLA. The charges alleged the involvement of politically connected candidates and senior CGPSC officials. Consequently, the CBI took over the investigation, filing charge sheets against certain individuals while continuing probes against others.In its earlier ruling, the single bench of Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad noted that only a limited number of candidates were implicated and that no incriminating material was found against the majority of selectees. The court directed the govt to issue conditional appointment letters to untainted candidates — clarifying that such appointments would not confer immunity if later adverse findings emerged. The appointments were to be finalised within 60 days.Challenging the order, the state argued that given the serious nature of charges against top officials and the ongoing CBI probe, issuing appointments would compromise the recruitment’s credibility. The state contended that inclusion in a merit list did not grant an indefeasible right to appointment when the process itself was under investigation.Rejecting the state’s arguments, the division bench endorsed the “balanced and constitutional approach” adopted by the single judge. The court held that innocent candidates cannot be denied appointment merely because some others were under suspicion, as such action would violate the principle of equality.The bench emphasised that the rights of meritorious candidates must be safeguarded while ensuring that ongoing investigations proceed unhindered. It clarified that conditional appointments were a fair compromise between individual rights and public interest, preventing collective punishment for alleged misconduct by a few.With the dismissal of the state’s appeals, the path is now clear for over 30 eligible candidates to receive their appointment orders and join their respective services. The division bench’s verdict thus upholds the rule of law, separating the fate of accused individuals from those lawfully selected, and stands as a significant victory for fairness and good governance.The state govt retains the option to challenge the ruling before the Supreme Court, but until then, the High Court’s order remains binding and operative.Aman Tamboli, counsel representing one of the petitioners, told TOI that the division bench has upheld the order of the single bench of A K Prasad. Those who have approached the court against the state govt appeal against the single bench order will benefit provided the final outcome of the judgment, the counsels said.Key Directions of the Division BenchThe state govt must issue appointment orders to candidates not named in CBI charge sheets and against whom no adverse material exists.Appointments shall remain provisional, subject to the outcome of the investigation.Appointment letters must clearly specify that any future adverse findings could result in termination or other legal consequences.The validity of the selection list (May 11, 2023 – May 10, 2024) must be honoured, and administrative delays cannot deprive candidates of their service opportunity.