1 - Ku. Lalita D/o. Virendra Kumar Netam, Aged About 28 Years R/o. Village v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:42202 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3187 of 2023 1 - Ku. Lalita D/o. Virendra Kumar Netam, Aged About 28 Years R/o. Village Chaarbhata Tahsil Charama District U.B. Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department (P.W.D.) Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Rapur, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Engineer-In-Chief Public Works Department, Nirmaan Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department (Pwd) B And R, Division Kanker, Kanker District U.B. Kanker Chhattisgarh. 4 - President Cum Commissioner Vishesh Kanisht Karmachari Chayan Board, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Additional Collector Cum President Selection Committee, O/o. Collector, Kanker District U.B. Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
the judgment of this Court in WPC No. 591/2012 and batch of petitions, which has already been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 19668/2022 vide order dated 01/05/2023. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the present petition has been preferred assailing the legality and propriety of the rejection order dated 20.4.2023, whereby the representation of the petitioner for her appointment as Peon in the office of respondent No. 3 has been arbitrarily and unjustifiably rejected by the Chief Engineer. It is submitted that while rejecting the petitioner’s claim, the respondent authority has taken the stand that, in view of the order dated 19.09.2022 passed in WPC No. 591/2012 and other connected matters, against which the State has preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is not entitled 5 for appointment since the reservation roster has allegedly not been followed. Learned counsel submits that the said reasoning is wholly misconceived and untenable in law, inasmuch as the case of the petitioner is not governed by the issue of reservation which is the subject matter of the pending SLP. The petitioner was selected purely on the basis of her merit under the unreserved category, as is explicitly evident from her appointment order dated 29.06.2022. Hence, the pendency of the aforesaid SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to reservation for SC, ST, and OBC candidates has no bearing whatsoever upon the appointment of the petitioner. It is further urged that the petitioner, having been selected from the women’s category in the unreserved slot, cannot be deprived of the fruits of her selection on a ground which is wholly extraneous and inapplicable to her case. The action of the respondent authority in mechanically rejecting her representation under the pretext of pendency of litigation on the issue of reservation is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that the impugned order rejecting the representation of the petitioner be quashed and the respondents be directed to consider and grant appointment to the petitioner in accordance with law, without being influenced by the 6 pendency of the aforesaid SLP which has no nexus with the claim of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State submits that the impugned order, whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected, has been passed strictly in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Hon’ble Court. It is contended that the competent authority, after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the relevant rules and guidelines governing the subject, has arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed. The said decision has neither been arbitrary nor unreasonable, but is a well-reasoned exercise of the statutory power vested in the authority. It is further submitted that the scope of judicial review in matters of administrative decision is limited to examining whether the decision-making process suffers from illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. In the present case, none of these infirmities are discernible in the impugned order. The authority has duly examined the representation of the petitioner and has recorded cogent reasons for its rejection. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot claim the relief as a matter of right, especially when the governing scheme or policy itself does not recognize such entitlement in the petitioner’s case. Thus, the learned counsel for 7
Arguments
: Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Pawan Shriwastava, Advocate. 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 20/08/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct concerned Respondents, especially Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to give appointments and joining to the Petitioner in the posts of Class-IV (Peon) in the Respondent No. 3 department, with immediate effects. 10.2 Any other order(s) deemed fit by Hon'ble Court for the benefits of the Petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case, including costs, be issued to uphold the rule of law and in the interests of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, for filling up the vacant posts of Class-IV (Peon) in various governmental departments of the Bastar Division, a selection process and procedure was carried out by respondent No. 5 on the basis of the roster issued by respondent No. 4. All the petitioners duly complied with the directions contained in the letter dated 19/07/2022 and submitted the requisite documents on the stipulated date i.e., 25/07/2022. In fact, since the petitioners were qualified up to Class XII, they also submitted their higher qualification certificates along with the 3 Class VIII certificates. Despite such compliance, respondent No. 2 again sought guidance from respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 28/10/2022, and simultaneously, an intimation regarding compliance of the letter dated 19/07/2022 was submitted before the Collector, U.B. Kanker, on 11/10/2022, which was received in the office of the Collector on 31/10/2022, seeking intervention for issuance of appointment orders. However, since the matter of appointments was being indefinitely delayed, the petitioners were constrained to submit a detailed representation dated 25/11/2022 to respondent No. 2 but instead of redressing their grievance, respondent No. 2 once again sought guidance from Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 20/12/2022, which also remained unfruitful. The aforesaid facts are borne out from official records and cannot be disputed by the respondents. It is pertinent to note that except for the petitioners, who as per the roster were allotted to the PWD Department for appointment as Peons, all other candidates placed in the Final Merit/Selection List dated 24/06/2022, including those having lower marks and merit, were issued appointment orders in different departments, have joined, and are presently working. In support thereof, a copy of the order dated 29/06/2022 granting appointments to such candidates in compliance of letter dated 29/06/2022. Aggrieved by this discriminatory treatment, the petitioners approached this Hon’ble 4 Court by filing WPS No. 714/2023, which was disposed of on 30/01/2023 with a direction that upon submission of a representation by the petitioners before respondents No. 1 to 3, the same shall be decided within a period of six weeks. In compliance thereof, the petitioners submitted a joint detailed representation within the prescribed period. However, respondent No. 2, vide impugned order dated 20/04/2023, rejected the said representation on baseless and frivolous grounds, relying upon
Decision
the respondent/State prays that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as being devoid of substance and that the order impugned is liable to be upheld in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, and more particularly taking into account the specific fact that the petitioner has been duly selected under the woman category post, which admittedly is not under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be deprived of the fruits of her selection and subsequent appointment. It is further relevant to note that the petitioner had already been appointed on the post of Peon, Class-IV in terms of the appointment order dated 29.06.2022. In view of the above, the impugned rejection order dated 20.04.2023 passed in respect of the petitioner is hereby set aside and quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to ensure that the appointment of the petitioner is given effect to strictly in accordance with the appointment order dated 29.06.2022. It is, however, made clear that in the event the post in question is not presently available in the said department, the State Government shall take necessary steps to accommodate the petitioner by posting her in any other department where a 8 suitable vacancy of the said category is lying vacant, in terms of the Government’s own order dated 12.05.2023, which reads as under:- “Be that as it may, one post of Class-IV/Peon in PWD department/respondent No.3 shall not be filled till the next date of hearing. However, it is also observed if the petitioner is eligible she may be adjusted in some other vacant post by the competent authority.” 7. The concerned respondent authorities are hereby directed to take necessary steps and pass appropriate and reasoned orders with regard to the joining of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment order dated 29.06.2022, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat