Nitesh Kumar Deshlahre S/o Shri Krishna Deshlahre, aged about 29 years, now 33 years v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Police Affairs Mahandi Bhawan, Atal
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:14068-DB NAFR ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.03.25 14:42:35 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 165 of 2025 Nitesh Kumar Deshlahre S/o Shri Krishna Deshlahre, aged about 29 years, now 33 years Occupation- Assistant Constable (GD), Caste- Satnami (Schedule Tribe), working under Police Station- Ambagarh Chowki, District- Rajnandgaon, now Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chouwki (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Police Affairs Mahandi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director General of Police Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Inspector General of Police Durg Range, District- Durg, C.G. 4 - The Senior Superintendent of Police District- Balod, C.G. 5 - The Superintendent of Police District- Rajnandgaon, C.G. (Non- Applicants)
Legal Reasoning
6 - Chhabilal Kachlame S/o Shri Brijlal Kachlame Aged About 35 Years Occupation- Assistant Constable (Gd), Caste- Gada, Working Under Base Camp Domikala, P.S.- Aundhi, District- Rajnandgaon, Now Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chouwki (C.G.) 7 - Raja Boga S/o Shri Sumer Singh Boga Aged About 30 Years Occupation- Assistant Constable (Gd), Caste- Gond, Working Under P.S.- Manpur, District- Rajnandgaon, Now Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chouwki (C.G.) 8 - Devsingh Mandavi S/o Late Shri Guhri Ram Mandavi Aged About 38 Years Occupation- Assistant Constable (Gd), Working Under P.S.- Kohka, Drg Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Now Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chouwki (C.G.) 2 9 - Ishwar Lal Bhuarya S/o Shri Dhirpal Singh Aged About 33 Years Occupation- Assistant Constable (Gd), Caste- Halba, Working Under P.S.- Manpur, Drg, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Now Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chouwki (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant For State : : Mr. Manas Vajpai and Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24 . 03 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Manas Vajpai and Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent / State on I.A. No. 01 of 2025, which is an application for codonation of delay of 01 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. On due consideration, I.A. No. 01 of 2025 is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act,
Decision
2006, the appellant, who was one of the writ petitioner in WP(S) No. 2560 of 2021, has challenged the order dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 3 2560 of 2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners therein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that an advertisement was issued by respondent No.2 for filling the posts of Constable (GD) in different Districts of the State of Chhattisgarh on 03.01.2018. The appellant sought permission from the department and submitted his application form and thereafter, also participated in the examination held on 05.02.2021 to 13.02.2021, but, the candidature of the appellant was rejected by respondent authorities on the ground that the document with regard to experience on the post of Assistant Constable was not placed along with the application form vide impugned orders dated 10.03.2021 and 19.03.2021 passed by respondent No.4 on behalf of respondent No.3. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein along with other writ petitioners have filed WP(S) No. 2560 of 2021 before the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 16.12.2024 observing that undisputedly, the writ petitioners were working on the post of Assistant Constable (GD) in the police department. The petitioners submitted their applications pursuant to the advertisement dated 03.01.2018 for the post of Constables. The petitioners were required to submit the experience certificate issued by the Competent Authority along with their application forms but they failed to produce any such document, therefore, they were treated as general candidates. Further, the petitioners 4 could not secure the qualifying marks as general candidates, therefore, their candidature was rejected. Being aggrieved by the same, the present present appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was one of the writ petitioner. 6. On 19.03.2025, the following order was passed :- “Heard Manas Vajpai and Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the Appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for respondent / State. Put up the matter again in order to enable the learned State counsel to explain as to what was the cut- off marks and how much the petitioner has secured. List the matter on 24.03.2025.” 7. In compliance of the said order, learned State Counsel has produced the instructions received from the Office of Superintendent of Police, District – Balod (C.G.) dated 20.03.2025, which has been taken on record. A copy of same is also given to learned counsel for the appellant and from perusal of the said instruction, it transpires that cut-off mark of general category candidate was 126.72, whereas the appellant has secured only 118 marks. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is undisputed that the appellant is a scheduled caste candidate and was working on the post of Assistant Constable at the time of filling the application form for the post of Constable (GD), but, only because 5 he has not submitted the experience certificate, his candidature has been rejected. He further submit that it is settled principle of law that the employer should have given one chance to the candidates or the employee to produce his documents at the end of the occasion of the advertisement, but the respondent authority not providing the opportunity for submitting the documents, issued the impugned order, which violated the principle of natural justice as well as violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He would state that the orders whereby the candidature of the petitioners have been rejected as well as the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge are liable to be quashed. He placed reliance on the judgment dated 16.06.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Narendra Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (Writ Appeal No. 251 of 2021) 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that though the appellant was working on the post of Assistant Constable (GD) in the police department, but at the time of filling the application form pursuant to the advertisement dated 03.01.2018 for the post of Constables, he was required to submit the experience certificate issued by the Competent Authority along with his application form, which he had not submitted, therefore, he was treated as general candidate. He further submitted that as per the instructions received from the Office of Superintendent of Police, District – Balod (C.G.) dated 20.03.2025, cut-off mark of general category candidate was 6 126.72, whereas the appellant has secured only 118 marks, as such, no interference is warranted. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 11. From perusal of the impugned order and the materials available on record, it transpires that admittedly, the appellant was working on the post of Assistant Constable (GD) in the police department, but at the time of filling the application form pursuant to the advertisement dated 03.01.2018 for the post of Constables, though he was required to submit the experience certificate issued by the Competent Authority along with his application form, but, he had not submitted the same, therefore, he was treated as general candidate. The judgment relied by the appellant in the case of Narendra Kumar (supra) is distinguishable on the ground of fact and circumstances of the present case. In the said case, though the appellant therein has submitted his domicile certificate along with his application form, rather he has filed the domicile certificate belonging to his sister, which certifies that she is a permanent resident of State of Chhattisgarh and apart from that the appellant has also filed his permanent caste certificate in which he has been shown to be the resident of Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon and a member of Scheduled Tribe community. But, in the instant case, the appellant has filed not filed the requisite experience certificate, as such, he was treated as general category candidate. Further, from perusal of instruction 7 dated 20.03.2025, received from the Office of Superintendent of Police, District – Balod (C.G.), it transpires that cut-off mark of general category candidate was 126.72, whereas the appellant has secured only 118 marks. 12. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra