While quashing the reservation notifications, the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur Bench has held that model rosters cannot independently authorise appointments. The recruitment and promotion may continue in accordance with law, but resultant service rights remain subject to the Supreme Court’s final decision. The Court however clarified that the advertisement dated 4 May 2023 for recruitment of Assistant Teachers, Teachers and Lecturers in Chhattisgarh, was quashed only insofar as it implemented the reservation arrangement founded on the notification dated 29 November 2012 and consequential model rosters already declared unconstitutional.
While declining wholesale cancellation of recruitment or automatic termination of existing appointees, the Court held that a roster merely implements a legally valid policy. Neither territorial cadres nor the description of vacancies as “backlog” supplies an independent legal foundation for perpetuating a quashed reservation framework. The Court also distinguished the permission to continue recruitment from approval of the reservation arrangement.
Emphasising that the order dated 1 May 2023 granted conditional protection, not absolute or indefeasible rights to selected candidates, the High Court directed the State to reconsider and regulate the vacancies and reservation roster in accordance with the law declared by the High Court, subject to the Supreme Court’s final adjudication.
The High Court said that the petitioners cannot be denied consideration merely because recruitment has progressed or appointments have been made. The Court also required future appointment orders, connected promotion orders and, where applicable, consequential service-benefit orders to expressly incorporate the Supreme Court-outcome condition. Any reworking of selection, appointment, promotion or seniority required by the final verdict must follow.
Briefly, the petitions challenged the advertisement dated 4 May 2023 for recruitment of Assistant Teachers, Teachers and Lecturers in Chhattisgarh, particularly the category-wise reservation for Teacher posts in the E-Cadre and T-Cadre. The petitioners, who participated in the examination, alleged that an excessive number of vacancies had been reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates, reducing opportunities for unreserved and other reserved categories.
Their central objection was that the recruitment relied on the reservation notification dated 29 November 2012 and consequential model rosters that the High Court had already declared unconstitutional on 19 September 2022. The State defended the distribution by referring to district/division-wise rosters and backlog vacancies from earlier recruitment.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad observed that filing an appeal or Special Leave Petition does not, by itself, remove the binding effect of a judgment declaring a reservation arrangement unconstitutional. A reservation roster only implements a valid reservation policy; it cannot independently create reservation or revive a quashed framework. The State had not demonstrated any subsequent, independently valid legal basis authorising the reservation pattern adopted in the advertisement.
The Court also clarified that backlog vacancies are constitutionally recognised, but merely describing vacancies as “backlog” cannot validate their origin under an unconstitutional reservation arrangement. It held that the Supreme Court’s order dated 1 May 2023 permitted recruitment and promotion to continue subject to the outcome of the pending proceedings, but it did not declare the disputed reservation framework valid or give selected candidates an absolute right.
The Court also rejected the objection based on delay or participation in the selection process, noting that the challenge was brought before the first selection list. At the same time, it considered wholesale termination of existing appointees inappropriate because it would cause administrative disruption and conflict with the protective approach adopted by the Supreme Court.
Lastly, the High Court asserted that a reservation notification and consequential rosters already declared unconstitutional cannot be treated as an independent and unrestricted source of authority for fresh appointments. Neither the existence of backlog vacancies nor conditional permission to continue recruitment revives or finally validates that framework.
