Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:7530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No.1292 of 2016 Judgment reserved on : 03.01.2025 Judgment delivered on : 12.02.2025 1 - Hemant Kumar Sahu S/o. Shri Pyarilal Sahu, Aged About 31 Years R/o New Risda, Bhadrapara, Balco Nagar, Ward No.36, Near CJM School, Tahsil Korba, Police Station Balco, District Korba Chhattisgarh versus Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development Department, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. And Post Rakhi District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2 - Director, Office Of Directorate Urban Administration And Development Department, D- Block, 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur P. S. And Post Rakhi District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director, Office Of Directorate Urban Administration And Development Department, D- Block, 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, P. S. And Post Rakhi District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Commissioner, Office Of Municipal Corporation, Saket Bhawan, In Front Of Collectorate Office, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner For Respondent-State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, GA For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of Petitioner and after its perusal allow the petition. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to cancel the impugned letter/order No. Fa. Kra/Estha/Ek/2015/10977 Korba dated 30/07/2015 (Annexure P-11) issued by the respondent No. 4 Corporation, Korba (C.G.) Commissioner, Municipal. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased direct the respondent authorities to particularly the respondent No. 4 to issue final result for the post of Sanitary Inspector and others and given joining to the selected candidates. 10.4 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to grant compensation Rs.5.00 lacs (rupees fivelacs) because of loss due to non-appointment on the post of Sanitary Inspector though qualified in all round. 10.5 That any other relief(s) or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted to the petitioner with cost of litigation Rs.20000/- ” 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.05.2013, the respondent No.4 issued an advertisement for direct recruitment for the post of sanitary inspector, steno-typist and others under Section 58 of Municipal Council Act, 1956 and also under Section 94(4) of C.G. 3 Municipal Corporation Act, 1961. On 13.6.2013, the respondent No.1 issued a letter to all Commissioners and all Chief Municipal Officers of Chhattisgarh State and informed that the time period for new recruitment in this department which was extended for 31.05.2013 is further extended for 31.07.2013. After the examination, the respondent No.4 issued the list of eligible candidates for the post of sanitary inspector and the name of petitioner was mentioned at serial No.1. On 09.09.2013 the respondent No.4 issued a letter to petitioner and other candidates for scrutiny/verification of documents and interview which was conducted on 12.09.2013. The petitioner participated in the interview but the respondent No.4 did not declare the final result, thereafter after some the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent No.4 regarding the same, but all went in vain, hence the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s name was mentioned at Sr. No.1 in the list of eligible candidates and the Municipal Corporation, Korba issued a letter to the petitioner and other candidates for scrutiny/verification as per Annexure-P/8 and interview was also conducted by the respondent No.4 on 12.09.2013. He further submits that the Director, Employment and Training Chhattisgarh, Raipur issued a letter dated 1.3.2013 and informed to all the Collectors, Commissioners of Municipal Corporations and all Chief Municipal 4 Officers of Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats of State of Chhattisgarh that the National Professional Training Institution of Central Government Labour Department Directorate has recognized the certificate of one year course of Health Sanitary Inspector but in spite of that the case of petitioner was not considered. The respondent No.3 Joint Director, Urban Administration & Development Department issued letter dated 11.03.2013 to the Additional Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department Chhattisgarh Raipur and requested him to issue direction for Local Administration to allow the certificate of Temporary National Professional Certificate issued by the State Professional Training Institution of State Board of Examination, but despite that the respondents are not considering the case of petitioner and not issued the final result.
Decision
Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Learned counsels for the respondents oppose the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel and jointly submit that vide letter dated 01.03.2013, issued by the Secretary, State Board of Examination, Directorate of Employment and Training, Chhattisgarh, Raipur addressed to all the Commissioners/Chief Municipal Officers of the Municipal Corporations/Councils/Nagar Panchayats of the State of Chhattisgarh, in which it has categorically been informed that the course done by the present petitioner in the Trade of Health Sanitary Inspector, One Year Course (Certificate Course) is recognized course from the 5 National Trade Training Council of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. Thereafter, on 27.04.2013, the Directorate of Urban Administration and Development, Chhattisgarh, Raipur issued instructions to all the Collectors and all the Commissioners/Chief Municipal Officers of the Municipal Corporations/Councils/Nagar Panchayats of the State of Chhattisgarh, in which it has been instructed that in the recruitment and promotion cases of the Sanitary Inspectors, the certificate of National Trade Certificate is be considered. After scrutiny, it has come to the knowledge that in the advertisement dated 29.05.2013 issued by the Office of the Municipal Corporation Korba, District Korba, the Certificate Course of One Year was also to be considered and mentioned as per the instructions of the State Government, but the same was not mentioned/published in the said advertisement and due to which the other candidates, who are having the same have not been given the opportunity of being applied pursuant to the said advertisement, which is totally violation of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, on this ground, the impugned letter has been issued by the Respondent No. 4 for cancelling the said advertisement, which is proper, legal and strictly in accordance with law. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijoy 6 Kumar Pandey vs Arvind Kumar Rai and others, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 611. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is an admitted position in this case that the respondent No.4 issued an advertisement dated 29.05.2013 (Annexure-P/4) for various posts and one of the post was sanitary inspector. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner and other candidates were called for interview by letter dated 09.09.2013 (Annexure- P/8). 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per Annexure-P/7, the petitioner’s name was mentioned at Sr. No.1 in the list of eligible candidates and the Municipal Corporation, Korba issued a letter to the petitioner and other candidates for scrutiny/verification as per Annexure-P/8 and interview was also conducted by the respondent No.4 on 12.09.2013. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on the aforesaid post. 8. The respondents have filed Annexure-R-1/3 note sheet of selection committee and as per this note sheet, on 04.06.2014 cancellation of selection process was recommended. The petitioner filed additional document on this ground that after issuing the circular/certificate, appointment orders were issued by the respondents but it is clear from the reply of the respondents and Annexures-R-1/1, R-2/2 & R-2/3 that as per note sheet, 7 cancellation of selection process was recommended by the selection committee. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijoy Kumar Pandey (supra) held in paras 15, 16 & 17 as under:- “15. In Rakhi Ray & Ors. v. The High Court of Delhi, (2010) 2 SCC 637, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held: “24. A person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. The vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate.” 16. Following the decision in Shankarsan Dass case (supra), this Court in State of Orissa & Anr. v. Rajkishore Nanda & Ors., 2010 (6) SCALE 126 held: acquire any “14. A person whose name appears in the select list does not indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. The vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate.” 17. Even assuming the preparation of a panel gave rise to any such right, since no panel had actually ever been prepared and published nor has the same been produced before the High Court or before us, we have no hesitation in holding that the direction issued to the Commission to act on the basis of the panel was wholly unjustified and unsustainable. The view taken by Dipankar Datta, J. in his order dated 27th July, 2009 that considerable time had expired since the selection process was initiated and that other candidates who may have in the meantime become qualified for consideration may be deprived of the right to compete was a reason enough for the High Court to decline a mandamus. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench of the High Court, in our view, committed an error in upsetting that direction. We also see no real conflict between the 8 orders passed by Dipankar Datta, J. on 12th March, 2009 and that passed on 27th July 2009, inasmuch as the question of the adding to the life of the panel the period during which there was a stay would arise only if there was a panel drawn in terms of the Regulations.” 10. In light of the above, in the present case also, it is clear that no select list was published and no appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner or other candidates and the petitioner’s only appearing in the examination and finding place in the list does not make him entitled to be appointed when the whole selection process was cancelled by the competent authority 11. The petition is without any merit and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Nirala Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge