Nafr High Court
Case Details
Page No.1 of 7 IN WPS-3506-2015 SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 2025.01.10 16:17:33 +0530 2025:CGHC:691 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3506 of 2015 Hem Kumar Ghritalahare S/o Shri Digesh Ram Ghritalahare Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 188, Vishvas Para, Village Mana Camp, Tehsil Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Rural Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Joint Director Urban Administration And Rural Development Department, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat, Mana Camp, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Kanupriya Badaraya W/o Shri Prashant Badaraya Aged About 31 Years R/o Shankar Nagar, Shantiwan Chowk, Haranabhandha, Near Muktidham, Harsh Flex, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner For Respondents No.1 to 4 : For Respondent No.5 : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate Dr. S.K. Dewangan, Panel Lawyer Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate 06 . 01 .202 5 1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is mainly directed against the order dated 17.09.2013 (Annexure-P/02), by which the respondent No.05 herein has been appointed on the post of Page No.2 of 7 IN WPS-3506-2015 Cashier in the office of Nagar Panchayat, Mana Camp, District Raipur (CG). 2.
Facts
Facts of the case, in short, is that on 29.01.2013, the respondents No.01 to 04 issued an advertisement for direct recruitment and appointment on one post of Cashier in the office of Nagar Panchayat, Mana Camp, District Raipur (CG) and, on 09.07.2013, merit list in the said recruitment was published. Thereafter, on 18.07.2013, a Committee constituted by the competent authority issued impugned recommendation, recommending the name of the respondent No.05 herein for appointment on the said post of Cashier. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent No.03- Collector against the aforesaid recommendation dated 18.07.2013 recommending the name of the respondent No.05 for appointment, however, on 17.09.2013, the respondent No.04 ultimately passed appointment order in favour of the respondent No.05 on the post of Cashier. Against which, this writ petition has been preferred. 3.
Legal Reasoning
interference by this Court in the matter of academics is very limited and this Court cannot take upon itself the task of examiner and examine the discrepancies and inconsistencies in question paper and evaluation thereof. He would rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and another 1 to bolster his submission on the point. Hence, the 1 (2010) 6 SCC 759 Page No.4 of 7 IN WPS-3506-2015 present petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties considered their rival submissions made herein above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. In the case at hand, for appointment on the post of Cashier at Nagar Panchayat, Mana Camp, District Raipur (CG), the District Selection Committee constituted under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1968 in its meeting dated 09.07.2013 after allocating marks to the candidates appearing in the aforesaid recruitment, prepared a comparative chart (Annexure-P/07), in which, following marks have been awarded to the petitioner and the respondent No.05 as under: Ø- vkosnd@ firk@ifr tUefr i= O;ogkj jkstxkj vkosfndk dk uke fFk dk irk thfor ckjgoha izkIrka izfr'k d r iw.kkZa d vfrf ;ksx jDr ;ksX; rk lk{kkRdkj lfp lnL v/; {k o ; ;ksx vuqHk ;ks dqy x ;ksx o o"kZ iath;u dk uke 28 gse dqekj fMxs'k jk; vk;q 01-01- 13 dh fLFkfr esa 04@0 uxj CT19 450 268 ?k`rygjs ?k`rygjs 6@19 lsuk ,oa 81 o"kZ ukxfjd 3 ekg lqj{kk 05 fnu eq[;ky; ekuk dSEi 04 13@0 jk;iqj 'kadj uxj 29 duqfiz;k iz'kkar cM+kj;k cMkj;k 6@19 'kkarhou 83 pkSd ds o"kZ 30 ikl ekg 06 fnu 09 gjukcka/kk eqDrh/kke ds ikl gcZ ¶ySDl nqxZ 12012 66827 Dec 2015 CT1 900 625 31200 94417 2 Feb 2015 2 6-17 3 2 4 3 3 1-5 10-67 2 6-86 4 5 5 4-67 0 11-53 59- 556 69- 444 Page No.5 of 7 IN WPS-3506-2015 8. A bare perusal of the above-quoted chart would show that the District Selection Committee, in total, awarded 10.67 marks to the petitioner in the interview, whereas awarded 11.53 marks to the respondent No.05 and, accordingly, recommendation was sent to the competent authority recommending the name of the respondent No.05 to be appointed on the said post. Thereafter, on the basis of the recommendation of the District Selection Committee, the respondent No.05 was appointed on the post of Cashier vide impugned order dated 17.09.2013 (Annexure-P/2). However, before passing of the impugned appointment order dated 17.09.2013, the petitioner made representation before the Collector and the Commissioner (Urban Administration and Development) dated 27.08.2013 (Annexure-P/13) for making an enquiry in the matter. According to the said representation, it has only been stated that assessment of the marks allocated to the petitioner and that of the respondent No.05 has not been done fairly and no illegality or malafide intention has been pointed out or demonstrated to hold that the District Selection Committee has illegally and inaccurately allotted marks to the petitioner under the biasedness of the respondent No.05. Even otherwise, the scope of interference in the finding of the Selection Committee with regard to allocation of marks and its recommendation is extremely limited. 9. 2 The Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Syal v. State of Punjab has held that marks given by the interview committee are not subject to 2 (2003) 9 SCC 401 Page No.6 of 7 IN WPS-3506-2015 judicial review unless malafide or extraneous consideration are alleged and established and observed as under: “12. ….Normally, it is not for the court to sit in judgment over such assessment and particularly in the absence of any mala fide or extraneous consideration attributed and established…...” 10. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and other v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and others 3 held that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decision of the Selection Committee and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. It has further been held that whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee, which has the expertise on the subject and the Court has no such expertise. 11. In that view of the matter and considering the limited scope of interference in the finding of Selection Committee in light of the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matters of Vijay Syal (supra) and Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke (supra), in the present case, where neither any illegality or malafide has been pointed out or demonstrated on the part of the Selection Committee by the petitioner while awarding marks nor any extraneous consideration has been shown in awarding marks to the respondent No.05 and, even under the head of experience, the respondent No.05 has been awarded zero mark, which shows that the District Selection Committee has acted fairly 3 (1990) 1 SCC 305 Page No.7 of 7 IN WPS-3506-2015 in awarding marks, this court does not find it fit and proper to interfere in the finding of the District Selection Committee with regard to awarding of marks to the petitioner as also to the respondent No.05, more particularly, when the present writ petition has been filed on 23.09.2015 challenging the order of appointment of the respondent No.05 dated 17.09.2013 i.e. after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 02 years. 12. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of delay and latches. s@if Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge
Arguments
Ms. Ruchi Nagar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though less marks have been awarded to the respondent No.05 for having additional qualification and experiences qua the petitioner herein, but still appointment order has been issued in her favour, which is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. She also submits that if proper marks could have been awarded to the petitioner he could have been selected over and above the respondent No.05. As such, the impugned order dated 17.09.2013 (Annexure-P/02) is liable to be set Page No.3 of 7 IN WPS-3506-2015 aside and present petition deserves to be allowed in toto. 4. Dr. S.K. Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.01 to 04 would submit that the Selection Committee constituted by the competent authority has considered the case of the petitioner as well as that of the respondent No.05 and, thereafter, on the basis of their qualification and experiences awarded marks to them in accordance with law and, on the basis of which, appointment order dated 17.09.2013 has been issued in favour of the respondent No.05, which cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. Learned State counsel vehemently argued that the present petition is also barred by limitation, as the impugned order was passed on 17.09.2013 and this petition has been filed before this Court on 23.09.2015 i.e. after a inordinate and explained delay of about more than 02 years and, on that count also, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.05 borrowed the arguments putforth by learned counsel for the respondents No.01 to 04 and further submits that the scope of