Bilaspur bench says candidate’s timely representations and state’s inaction justify remedy; court calls later appointment in deceased’s name “grossly irregular”
The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has allowed a writ petition and directed the State to appoint Nilkanth Kumar Sahu as Sports Officer from the CGPSC waiting list, finding that his claim arose and was pressed during the panel’s validity and that delays were the fault of the administration rather than the candidate. In a CAV order dated 17 October 2025, Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad concluded that the petitioner, who stood first on the OBC waiting list, made timely representations and pursued documentation while the Department and the commission failed to act, and that administrative lapses could not be permitted to defeat his right to appointment.
The recruitment at issue was conducted after Advertisement No. 05/2019 for Sports Officer. The final selection and waiting lists were published on 18 September 2020 and were valid initially until 17 March 2022; the commission later extended that validity to 17 September 2022. When a selected OBC candidate, Amit Verma, died on 27 December 2021 before joining, Sahu placed first on the OBC wait list submitted representations within the operative period seeking appointment in Verma’s place. He also provided a postmortem report and repeatedly pressed the Department of Higher Education to obtain the official death certificate, which the Department secured only on 5 December 2022. Despite these steps, the CGPSC declined a further six-month extension of the wait list on 17 February 2023, and the vacancy was not filled in time.
The court carefully threaded recent precedent into its reasoning. It recalled the settled legal position that mere expiry of a select or waiting list does not automatically extinguish the rights of a candidate who asserted a claim during the list’s validity; where a claim was made in time and the delay is attributable to official inaction, equity and precedent often require corrective relief. The bench cited and applied authorities such as Sat Pal and Ram Swarup Saroj to hold that the decisive question is when the vacancy arose and whether the candidate had pursued his claim within the operative period of the panel. On the facts before it including documentary proof that the petitioner had regularly followed up and that an appointment was later inexplicably issued in the name of the deceased on 21 June 2024 the court described that later action as “grossly irregular” and found it reinforced the petitioner’s case.
The State and the CGPSC argued that the Commission’s decision not to extend the waiting list left no scope for appointment and that the authorities had acted within the limits of their powers. The court accepted that the commission ordinarily manages the validity and extension of panels, but it held that when the administration itself contributed to delay by not obtaining or following up the necessary death certificate and verification promptly the candidate should not bear the consequence. The bench found the record showed the petitioner had been diligent and that the respondents’ failure to act amounted to arbitrariness warranting a judicial remedy.
Concluding the petition in Sahu’s favour, the High Court directed the respondents to issue an appointment order in his favour for the Sports Officer post under the OBC category, in place of the late Amit Verma, within eight weeks from receipt of certified copy of the order. The court framed its direction as a corrective measure to prevent the State from taking advantage of its own delay and to vindicate the legitimate expectation of a candidate who complied with all requirements during the life of the panel.
For practitioners and public servants, the judgment is a practical reminder: recruitment panels and waiting lists cannot be allowed to become instruments of administrative convenience when a candidate’s timely claim and diligence are on record. Where the vacancy arises during the panel’s subsistence and the delay in filling it is caused by the employer, courts remain willing to restore lawful expectations and direct appointments as necessary.
Case Details : WPS No. 4316 of 2023, Nilkanth Kumar Sahu vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer and For the Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate.