Smt. Bhumika Sahu v. Registrar General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bodri Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District

Judgment

7. ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN 13:09:13 +0530

9. Kumari Bharti D/o Ishwar Dayal Resident Of Village And Post Selud, Police Station Utai, Tehsil Patan District Durg, Chhattisgarh, At Present Posted As AG-III At High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bodri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Rina Nirmalkar, working on the post of Assistant Grade 3, District & Session Court, Durg C.G. ---- Respondents For Petitioner

: Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate. For Res. No. 1 & 2/ High Court : Mr. Sumesh Bajaj along with Mr. Ayush Verma, Advocate. For Res. No. 3, 4, 5 & 8 : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Res. No. 6 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha along with Mr. Somya Das, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. CAV ORDER

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to consider the name of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III from Other Backward Class (Women) category with all consequential benefits like salary, seniority and increments at par with the selected candidates who have been appointed vide order dated 08.01.2015.

2. The brief facts as reflected from records are that respondent/Registrar General, High Court of Chhattisgarh issued an advertisement in the year 2013-14 for appointment on various posts i.e. Stenographer, Translator, Assistant Librarian, Assistant Grade-III (Computer) including 33 posts of Assistant Grade-III which consists of 13 posts for unreserved (including 4 for women & 1 for Physically Disabled persons), 4 posts for SC (including 1 for women), 11 posts for ST (including 3 for Women & 1 for Physically Disabled persons) & 5 posts for OBC (including 2 for Women)]. The last date for submission of form was 07.02.2014. The petitioner applied for the said post under Other Backward Class (OBC) Women category. The petitioner has obtained total 27 marks which consists of 12.5 marks for Skill Test/Hindi Typing), 13 marks for Skill Test/English Typing and 1.5 marks for interview but could not find place in the merit position due to wrong application of reservation rules and could not be selected on the aforesaid post.

3. It is also case of the petitioner that in the category wise list issued by the High Court, the highest marks obtained by the unreserved (Women) category is 28.50 marks and lowest one was 26 marks. Similarly for OBC (Women) category, the candidate who has secured 27.75 marks has been found place in the top and the candidate who has secured 27.25 marks has been found place in the last place of selected candidate. On above factual foundation, the petitioner would submit that the High Court has committed illegality in not placing the OBC (Women) candidate in the list of General (Women) category though they have obtained marks more than the General (Women) category by not applying horizontal reservation which is violation of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Special Provision for appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 (for short “the Rules, 1997”).

4. It has been further contended that if two candidates of OBC (Women) category namely Poonam Sahu & Bharti who have obtained 27.50 & 27.25 respectively which is more/equal than the marks obtained by Anita Namdeo & Poonam Nirmalkar, each have obtained 27.25, as such they should have been shifted into the list of General category. Accordingly, Anita Namdeo & Poonam Nirmalkar who are in General (Women) category could not have been appointed by the respondent. It has also been contended that if this anomaly is cured by the respondents by applying the correct position of law then case of Rina Nirmalkar & the present petitioner deserves to be considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III.

5. Since Rina Nirmalkar was not party to the case, therefore, the petitioner moved an application on 11.01.2024 for adding Rina Nirmalkar as respondent No. 9 which was allowed by this Court on 06.03.2024. It has also been contended by the petitioner that Rina Nirmalkar is presently working as Assistant Grade-III in District Court establishment at Durg, therefore, she may not be interested to get employment in the High Court, as such she will be placed in the waiting list No. 1 as such, the petitioner would pray for issuing appointment order in her favour.

6. The petitioner has also filed I.A. No. 04/2019 for taking additional documents on record and also filed documents pertaining to the selection list of unreserved category on the post of Assistant Grade-III, Stenographer for 2018-19 wherein the High Court has included the OBC category selected candidates in the list of unreserved category who have secured marks more than the General category candidates which clearly demonstrates that the respondents have not followed the correct reservation rules and the selection process for the year 2014-15, deserves to be vitiated on account of violation of Rules, 1997, therefore, she is entitled to get the relief as prayed for in the writ petition and would pray for directing respondent No. 1 & 2 to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner with all consequential benefits including seniority and monetary benefits.

7. To substantiate his submissions, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India [(1992) Supp. (3) SCC 217], R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab [(1995) 2 SCC 745], Saurabh Yadav & others Vs. State of U.P. & others [(2021) 4 SCC 542], Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & another Vs. Sandeep Choudhary & others [(2022) 11 SCC 779], Sadhana Singh Dangi & others Vs. Pinky Asati & others [(2022) 12 SCC 401], Dinesh Kumar Kashyap Vs. South East Central Railway [(2019) 12 SCC 798], Kapil Kumar & others Vs. State of U.P. & others [Special Appeal No. 93/2023].

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 & 2/High Court opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the instant petition is not maintainable as it is settled principle of law that after taking part in a selection process and turning out to be unsuccessful the selection process cannot be criticized. The petitioner herself took part in the selection process and after being unsuccessful has challenged the entire selection process alleging the same to be illegal which is not permissible in law. He would further submit that as per Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Special Provision for appointment of Women) Rules, 1997, 30% posts reserved for women shall be horizontal and compartment wise will be applicable. He would further submit that the petitioner has claimed benefits under Rules, 1997 which are as set of special rules made for the reservation of women candidates, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to take rely or support of general principles regarding reservation and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

9. He would further submit that the writ petition is not maintainable as according to the petitioner, the petitioner is at serial No. 2 of the wait list candidate whereas waiting list No. 1-Ku. Rina Nirmalkar was not initially party to the case and she has been arrayed as party to the case after lapse of 9 years of filing of the petition which cannot be given retrospective effect to challenge the wait list as the wait list stood expired after one year of issuance of selection list on 05.01.2015. He would further submit that even this Court while admitting the petition has not granted any interim order in favour of the petitioner, as such also the claim of the petitioner for issuing direction to consider the merit candidate of women reservation as general category (Women) cannot be considered due to efflux of time. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. To substantiate this submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hoh’ble the Supreme Court in the case reported in (2017) 13 SCC 836, 2011 SCC Online Del