Indrajeet Singh, S/o Late Shri Dharampal Singh, aged about 34 years, R/o 44 v. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Law and
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:9635 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order Reserved on: 09.12.2024 Order Passed on: 25.02.2025 WPS No. 953 of 2017 Indrajeet Singh, S/o Late Shri Dharampal Singh, aged about 34 years, R/o 44 Quarter West Chirmiri Pondi, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur(C.G.). 2. District Judge, District and Sessions Judge, Korea, Baikunthpur, District Korea, Baikunthpur District Korea (C.G.). 3. Selection Committee, through the President, O/o District and Sessions Judge, Korea, Baikunthpur, District Korea(C.G.) 4. Regional Transport Authority, Baikunthpur, Collectorate Road Chindand, Korea Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.).
Legal Reasoning
5. Abhishek Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Lal Singh, R/o Staff Quarter Domanhil, Chirmiri, Post Sonamani, District Korea (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner 2 : Mr. N. K. Shukla, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 4/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C.A.V. ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 28.05.2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the respondent No. 5 was appointed on the post of driver in the office of respondent No. 2. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in nutshell is that respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement dated 01/02/2016 (Annexure P/2) for recruitment on the post of driver from the candidates residing in Surguja division in the light of the provisions appended thereto. The petitioner applied for the post of the driver in pursuance of the said advertisement wherein the petitioner possesses higher and more specialized qualification i.e. High School, Higher Secondary Certificate, National Council for Vocational Training Certificate, Central Tool Room & Training Centre Certificate, Driving Licence, Residence Certificate, Identity Card, Experience Certificate, etc. Copies of the various certificates are annexed as Annexure P/3 (Collectively). Respondent No. 3 published merit list (Annexure P/4) after scrutinizing the various applications of the eligible candidates wherein the petitioner was at serial No. 4 after obtaining 28 marks out of total marks 50. On 25/05/2016, respondent No. 3 conducted a skill test and thereafter 3 published a list of passed candidates in skill test wherein the petitioner got place at serial No. 3. The respondent No. 3 published a Select List & Waiting List of 3 candidates wherein the respondent No. 5 has been selected and the present petitioner was found his place in Waiting List. Copies of the Select List & Waiting List are annexed as Annexure P/5. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 issued an appointment order dated 28/05/2016 (Annexure P/1) whereby respondent No 5 has been appointed on the post of driver in the office of Respondent No. 2. On 30/05/2016 (Annexure P/6), the present petitioner put a preliminary objection letter before respondent No. 3 regarding selection process and overlooking by violating the provisions appended in the advertisement for the recruitment on the post of driver. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application under RTI seeking information regarding recruitment process and also for obtaining status of its preliminary objection letter. Respondent No. 3 decided the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner vide its order dated 20/06/2016 (Annexure P/7). Thereafter, on 23.09.2016 (Annexure P/8), the petitioner preferred an application under RTI seeking information regarding rules & regulations with respect to conduction of Skill test etc. before the Public Information Officer of Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 in reply of the petitioner's application dated 23/09/2016, supplied some documents of recruitment process under RTI to the petitioner. After carefully observing the documents (Annexure P/9), the petitioner got to know that respondent No. 3 had allotted total 25 marks to the candidates in Skill Test which is contrary to the provisions appended in the advertisement. Thereafter, by way of the RTI, the present petitioner received his answer sheets as well as of 4 the respondent No. 5 wherein some correction and manipulation is to be noticed. Copies of the answer sheets are annexed as Annexure P/10. Hence, this petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the recruitment process on the post of driver issued by the respondent No. 3. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari for the quashment of the impugned order dated 28.05.2016 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No. 3 whereby the respondent No. 5 has been appointed on the post of driver in the office of respondent No. 2 and also by quashing the Select List and Waiting List (Annexure P/5) of the recruitment process and it is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner on the post of driver arising out of the same selection process with all consequential benefit. 10.3 This Hon’ble Court may also kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which may be considered fit and proper in the light of facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that the respondents are under constitutional obligation to consider and follow the governing statutory provisions for the present recruitment process. The respondents had allotted marks to the candidates out of total 25 marks in the Skill Test which is contrary to the provisions appended in the advertisement dated 01/02/2016 (Annexure P/2). In the advertisement of recruitment for the post of driver, only conduction of Skill test is to be mentioned but contrary to it, the respondent No. 4 had allotted marks to the candidates out of total 25 marks, which was not mentioned in the advertisement. Petitioner possessed a very good academic and other qualification including experience too rather than the other participated 5 candidates but the respondents had not paid any heed to recruit the present petitioner. The preliminary objection of the petitioner had not been considered and decided in its true spirit resulting to appoint respondent No. 5 by violating the provisions of the advertisement. The age of the petitioner was ought to be considered amongst the other candidates. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.05.2016 (Annexure P/1) is liable to be quashed/set aside and respondent authorities are directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of driver with all consequential benefits. Reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 07.11.2024 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 2634 of 2013. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4 strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the advertisement dated 01.02.2016 (Annexure P/2) was issued for various posts including the post of Driver. At Sr. No.2 of the advertisement, the educational qualification for the post of Driver was prescribed. The educational qualification required for the post of Driver is passing of 8 th class and alive Driving Licence with respect to the four wheeler vehicle. The recruitment process has been prescribed at Sr. No.4 of the advertisement. The entire selection process has been done by following the recruitment process mentioned in the advertisement and after due selection process, the impugned merit list and the impugned appointment order were issued in favour of respondent No.5. 6 He contended that firstly, the written examination was conducted wherein the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 participated and on the basis of the written examination, a merit list (Annexure P/4) was prepared. It is clear from the perusal of the merit list (Annexure-P/4), the name of the petitioner appears at Sr. No.3 wherein the petitioner has obtained 28 marks out of 50 marks. Similarly, the name of respondent No.5- Abhishek Kumar Singh appears at Sr. No.4 and he has obtained 28 marks out of 50 marks. Therefore, it is clear that both the participants have obtained equal marks in the written examination. No preference or additional marks has been given to any one for having higher qualification than passing of class 8th. Therefore, the ground of the petitioner that he possesses higher qualification than the respondent No.5 i.e. of high school and higher secondary etc. is not tenable in view of the condition mentioned in the advertisement. The Skill test for the post of driver was conducted through the officials of the Transport Department and the result of the Skill test has been annexed as Annexure-P/9. It appears from perusal of Annexure-P/9 that the petitioner obtained Grade-A and in the remark column it has been mentioned that the petitioner is pass whereas it is further clear from the document Annexure-P/9 that respondent No.5 Abhishek Kumar Singh has obtained AA Grade and in the remark column it has been mentioned that the respondent No.5 is super pass and very good. So, on the basis of skill test, it is found that respondent No.5 is more meritorious and suitable for the post of Driver and hence, the impugned appointment order dated 28/05/2016 (Annexure-P/1) has been issued by the respondent No.2 and the said order is in accordance with law and as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement and there is 7 no illegality or arbitrariness in the same. He further submits that the petitioner filed objection before respondent No.2 and selection committee considered all objections of the petitioner and after due consideration, objection was rejected by the selection committee. It is clear that transparency has been maintained in the entire selection process and the selection process has been done in accordance with law. Selection committee has power to decide the total marks out of which a candidates should be given or allotted marks in the skill test even otherwise, the respondent No.5 has secured better marks than the petitioner. Therefore, the instant petition being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 supported the argument advanced by learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 7. It is not disputed in this case that respondent No.2 issued an advertisement dated 01.02.2016 (Annexure P/2) for various posts including the post of driver. Petitioner and respondent No. 5 appeared in the selection process conducted for the post of driver which was mentioned in Sr. No. 2 of the advertisement (Annexure P/2). 8. Main objection of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities had allotted marks out of total 25 marks to the candidates in skill test which is contrary to the provisions appended in the advertisement (Annexure 8 P/2). In the advertisement, recruitment for the post of driver, only conduction of skill test is to be mentioned. 9. It is clear from advertisement dated 01.02.2016 (Annexure P/2) that for recruitment on the post of the driver, one post was advertised and the educational qualification required for the said post is passing of 8th class and alive driving license with respect to the four wheeler vehicle. The conditions mentioned under recruitment process on the post of driver read as under:- वा(cid:2)हन चा(cid:2)लक :- 1- सा(cid:2)मा(cid:2)न्य ሺኋ(cid:2)न क(cid:13) वास्तु(cid:16)निन् ्ቚक(cid:20) नितु क(cid:13) 50 ्ቚश्न ह(cid:22)गे(cid:13), ्ቚत्य(cid:13)क ्ቚश्न 01 अं(cid:26)क क(cid:2) ह(cid:27)गे(cid:2), बह(cid:29) निवाकल्ोሬ(cid:22) मा! सा(cid:13) एक क(cid:2) चायन निकय(cid:2) जा(cid:2)न(cid:2) ह$, एक सा(cid:13) अंधि&क निवाकल्ोሬ ोሬर निचान्ह लगे(cid:2)न(cid:13) ोሬर उसा ्ቚश्न क(cid:13) उ्ቈर 0 (शू+न्य) अं(cid:26)क नि,य(cid:2) जा(cid:2)वा(cid:13)गे(cid:2) । 2- धिलधि.तु ोሬर/ቌኋ(cid:2) मा! ्ቚ(cid:2)ኋ᭐(cid:2)(cid:26)क क(cid:13) आ&(cid:2)र ोሬर मा(cid:13)रिरट धिलस्ट बन(cid:2)ई जा(cid:2)वा(cid:13)गे/ । 3- 8 वा6 कቌኋ(cid:2) सा(cid:13) उच्चा्ቈमा शू$ቌኋनि8क य(cid:27)ग्यतु(cid:2) ोሬर शू/्ቧ; अं(cid:26)क नह6 ह(cid:27)गे(cid:2)। (क(cid:27)ई अं(cid:26)क नह6 नि,य(cid:2) जा(cid:2)वा(cid:13)गे(cid:2)) 4- वा(cid:2)हन चा(cid:2)लन क< क=शूल ोሬर/ቌኋ(cid:2) सा(cid:26)ब(cid:26)धि&तु अंधि&क(cid:2)रिरय(cid:22) क(cid:13) मा(cid:2)ध्यमा सा(cid:13) ल/ जा(cid:2)वा(cid:13)गे/, धिजासामा! साफल ह(cid:27)न(cid:2) अंनिनवा(cid:2)य; ह$ ोሬरन्तु(cid:16) मा(cid:2)्ቔ क=शूल ोሬर/ቌኋ(cid:2) चायन क(cid:2) आ&(cid:2)र नह6 ह(cid:27)गे(cid:2) । 10. Upon perusal of the entire documents, it is clear that the petitioner and respondent No.5 obtained 28 marks out of 50 marks in written test as per Annexure P/4. As per Annexure P/9, in skill test, the petitioner obtained Grade-A and in the remark column it has been mentioned that 9 the petitioner is pass whereas respondent No.5 Abhishek Kumar Singh obtained AA Grade and in the remark column it has been mentioned that the respondent No.5 is super pass and very good.” As per Annexure R/1, total score of respondent No. 5 – Abhishek Kumar Singh is 43 and petitioner- Indrajeet Singh is 38. It is also clear that the objection of the petitioner was duly considered by the selection committee and thereafter, the same was rejected. 11. It is evident from the documents that another candidate namely Pradip Kumar Gupta also got marks similar to the petitioner but petitioner did not made him party in the case. Also, as per skill test, respondent No. 5 scored higher grade than the petitioner and as per advertisement, minimum educational qualification is passing of 8th class and it is also clear from condition No.4 mentioned in the advertisement (Annexure P/2) that passing of skill test is mandatory and as per condition No.3, no marks will be given for highest educational qualification from 8th class. 12. Petitioner filed the answer sheets and on the date of argument, respondents also filed the original answer-sheets of the petitioner and respondent No.5 and after perusal of the same, this Court did not find any illegality or abnormality in examining the mark-sheets of petitioner and respondent No.5. Thus, it is clear that the whole selection process was conducted by the selection committee as per conditions mentioned in the advertisement and this Court did not find any illegality or irregularity in the selection process. Hence, the petitioner has failed to point out any irregularity or illegality in the selection process. 10 13. In view of above discussion and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 28.05.2016 (Annexure P/1) and, therefore, the instant petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV