The Chhattisgarh High Court has quashed the reservation arrangement used for the state’s 2023 teacher recruitment to the extent that it relied on a 2012 notification and model rosters previously declared unconstitutional, while allowing recruitment and promotion processes to continue subject to the Supreme Court’s final decision.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad passed the order on October 14 while allowing a batch of writ petitions challenging the May 4, 2023, recruitment advertisement for Assistant Teachers, Teachers and Lecturers. The court said the invalidated reservation framework could not independently and unconditionally support appointments.
The petitions focused particularly on recruitment for Teachers in the E-Cadre and T-Cadre. Petitioners alleged that the category-wise distribution of vacancies resulted in excessive reservation for Scheduled Tribes and affected candidates from unreserved and other reserved categories.
Of the 1,113 advertised E-Cadre teacher posts, 698, or approximately 62.71%, were reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates, according to the petitioners. In the T-Cadre, 3,105 of 4,659 posts, or about 66.64%, were earmarked for Scheduled Tribe candidates. The petitioners argued that the arrangement conflicted with the applicable law and the constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity in public employment under Articles 14 and 16.
The dispute traces back to a November 29, 2012, notification that increased Chhattisgarh’s reservation quota from 50% to 58%. The arrangement comprised 12% reservation for Scheduled Castes, 32% for Scheduled Tribes and 14% for Other Backward Classes. A division bench of the High Court struck down that notification on September 19, 2022, after which the state approached the Supreme Court.
On May 1, 2023, the Supreme Court permitted ongoing recruitment and promotion processes to continue subject to the final outcome of the proceedings before it. The petitioners contended that this order did not authorise the state to begin a fresh recruitment exercise based on the notification already quashed by the High Court. They also argued that describing vacancies as backlog posts could not revive a reservation framework that had lost legal effect.
The High Court clarified that the Supreme Court’s interim protection allowed recruitment and promotion processes to proceed but did not establish the validity of the 2012 notification or the consequential model rosters. Their substantive validity remains pending before the apex court. The court said backlog vacancies could not be used to preserve or revive a reservation arrangement that no longer had legal efficacy.
At the same time, the High Court declined to order the wholesale termination of appointments already made. Existing appointments will remain protected conditionally and will be subject to the Supreme Court’s final decision. The court also said authorities must regulate the recruitment exercise in accordance with the law and the protection granted by the Supreme Court.
The order did not settle the ultimate validity of the reservation framework. It preserved the interests of appointed candidates while allowing petitioners and similarly placed candidates to retain their right to consideration. The recruitment and promotion processes can continue pending the Supreme Court’s final adjudication.
