Court Orders Reinstatement of Merit-Based Selection for Secretary Post in Micro Watershed Committee
In a significant judgment passed on January 31, 2026, the Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside the arbitrary selection of a candidate for the post of Secretary (Contractual) in the Tatapani Micro Watershed Committee. The decision came after Satyam Gupta, who was initially placed at the top of the merit list, was removed and placed on the waiting list without justifiable reason. The court found that another candidate, Dilip Kumar Ekka, was included in the select list despite not being listed in the original merit list.
Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, presiding over the case, emphasized the importance of adherence to the principles of transparency, fairness, and non-discrimination in recruitment processes. He ruled that the selection process must conform to the terms and conditions outlined in the advertisement, which did not specify that experience must be from a Government or Semi-Government institution. The court also highlighted that any change in eligibility criteria or selection process during recruitment is impermissible unless explicitly provided under extant rules or advertisement.
The case, Satyam Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, involved a challenge to the recruitment process by Satyam Gupta, who had applied for the Secretary position in the Micro Watershed Committee of Tatapani. Gupta, represented by Advocate Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, argued that his removal from the merit list was arbitrary and lacked transparency. The court concurred, noting that Gupta's merit, as per the original list, must be acknowledged.
The court ordered the respondent authorities to reconsider Gupta's candidature according to the merit list, restore his name, and issue an appointment order. This judgment reinforces the necessity of maintaining the integrity of recruitment processes to ensure equality and justice as prescribed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution.
Bottom Line:
Recruitment process - Selection process must adhere to the terms and conditions of the advertisement and should be transparent, non-discriminatory, and non-arbitrary.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
Satyam Gupta v. State Of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2857151
