HC denies in-service quota claim for veterinary course admission

Raipur: The Chhattisgarh high court has dismissed petitions filed by four assistant veterinary field officers seeking to be relieved and admitted as in-service/departmental candidates to the Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry (B.V.Sc.

& A.H.) course for the 2025–26 session. The court held that no enforceable right exists for such admission under the prevailing admission framework.Justice Bibhu Datta Guru passed the order on Thursday. The petitioners, serving in the Veterinary Department, had challenged government communications from 2020 that stopped sending assistant veterinary field officers for the course at state expense “until further orders”.

They also challenged the rejection of their applications in March 2025.The officers argued that their post is a feeder cadre for promotion to veterinary assistant surgeon and that obtaining a B.V.Sc. degree is necessary for career advancement. They relied on an earlier HC ruling in Tosh Kumar Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh, claiming similarly placed officials were allowed to pursue the course as departmental candidates.

They also questioned the application of the 2025 admission rules, arguing they were introduced after the admission process began and could not affect candidates who had qualified NEET-UG 2025.The state and Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu University opposed the petitions, stating that admissions for 2025–26 were governed by the Admission Rules, 2025 approved by the university’s Executive Council. They said the rules do not provide any quota for in-service candidates from the Veterinary Department.

The government also cited staff shortages and administrative requirements behind its decision not to depute officers for the course.Rejecting the plea, the court said the 2011 recruitment rules only prescribe eligibility conditions and do not create a right for serving employees to demand admission or reserved seats in a professional course. It held that admissions must follow the rules applicable when the process begins.On the earlier Tosh Kumar Sinha judgement, the court said it was based on “peculiar facts and special circumstances” and was specifically treated as an exceptional case without precedential value.The court also rejected the argument regarding lack of Chancellor’s assent, observing that the admission framework was not a statute requiring such approval. It said courts cannot create a category of candidates not recognised under existing rules.The petitions were dismissed, with no order on costs. The court reiterated that relief under Article 226 can be granted only when there is a legal right and corresponding public duty.