Citation : 2025 Local Law (CG) 858 : 2025:CGHC:54781
The Chhattisgarh High Court on November 11, 2025, dismissed a cluster of writ petitions challenging the shortlisting process used by the State’s Search Committee for appointments to the posts of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioner. In a reasoned order delivered by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, the court found that the committee’s decision to apply a 25-year experience threshold for shortlisting candidates and a maximum age limit of 65 did not amount to an unlawful mid-process change of the rules and fell within the acceptable scope of rational shortlisting practice.
Petitioners in the grouped matters had argued that the Search Committee effectively altered the “rules of the game” after applications were invited by prescribing an explicit requirement of 25 years’ experience, thereby excluding applicants who otherwise met the broader statutory criteria under Section 15 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The court, after reviewing the advertisement history and the minutes of the Search Committee, observed that shortlisting is an accepted and necessary administrative measure when a large number of applicants must be reduced to a manageable number for interview. The bench relied on Supreme Court precedents recognizing that shortlisting is permissible provided the method is objective, rational and not arbitrary.
The record shows that the State issued multiple advertisements for the posts between 2022 and 2025 and that the latest round drew 231 applications, 172 of which were for Information Commissioner posts. To ensure a rigorous interview process for sensitive statutory positions, the Search Committee set a framework including the 25-year experience benchmark and an upper age limit of 65 and published its decisions on the State’s General Administration Department website. The petitioners had earlier secured an interim stay on the process, but that injunction was vacated by the High Court in its November 11 order.
Justice Vyas’s ruling emphasized that the Search Committee’s role in fixing objective shortlisting criteria flows from the Supreme Court’s guidance in cases such as Anjali Bhardwaj and Tej Prakash Pathak, which the court cited while upholding the committee’s procedure. The High Court noted that petitioners did not allege mala fide action, nor did they demonstrate that non-publication of shortlisting criteria caused them any specific prejudice. On these bases the court concluded that there was no legal infirmity to invalidate the selection process and dismissed all the writ petitions. The interim order issued on May 29, 2025, was accordingly vacated.
For prospective applicants and stakeholders, the judgment clarifies two practical points. First, where an advertisement sets out broad eligibility, an administrative body may adopt objectively placed filters for shortlisting, especially for interview-only selections involving high-level statutory offices. Second, courts will generally refrain from interfering with shortlisting unless the method adopted is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or demonstrably causes prejudice to candidates. The court made clear that candidates have a right to be considered, but not a vested right to appointment.
The State’s move to complete the selection process follows directions from the Supreme Court earlier in 2025, which urged states to fill vacancies in Information Commissions within defined timelines. The Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision removes the earlier pause and allows the State to proceed with final selection and appointment steps that were pending after interviews were conducted.
Case Details : WPS No. 3775 of 2025 Anil Tiwari vs State of Chhattisgarh and Othes with WPS No. 3845 of 2025 Rajendra Kumar Padhye vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others, WPS No. 3844 of 2025 Dr. Dineshwar Prasad Soni vs State of Chhattisgarh and Othes, WPS No. 3811 of 2025 Dr. Dineshwar Prasad Soni (D.K. Soni) vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others and WPS No. 3815 of 2025 Dr. Dineshwar Prasad Soni (D.K. Soni) vs State of Chhattisgarh and Othrs.
Counsels : For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Mr. Prasoon Agrawal & Ms. Sweksha Sharma. Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General For Intervenors : Mr. Ali Asgar & Mr. Shantam Awasthi, Advocates For Intervenor : Mr. R.K. Mishra