Smt. Bhumika Sahu W/o Shri Narottam Sahu Aged About 42 Years Resident Of G-4/2 v. 1 - High Court of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General , Bodri, Chhattisgarh District Bilaspur
Case Details
1 WA No.450 of 2025 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.07.09 18:34:11 +0530 2025:CGHC:31223-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 450 of 2025 Smt. Bhumika Sahu W/o Shri Narottam Sahu Aged About 42 Years Resident Of G-4/2, High Court Colony, Rahangi Road, Achanakpur, Chakar-Bhata, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - High Court of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General , Bodri, Chhattisgarh District Bilaspur, 2 - Registrar General High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bodri Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh District Bilaspur,
Legal Reasoning
this Court in WPS No. 2624/2015 only to the extent of not granting seniority and other consequential benefits to the petitioner alongwith other select candidates in same selection process on the post of AG-III. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned Single Judge. 3 WA No.450 of 2025 2. (a) Facts of the case, in brief, is that the 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 appellant/writ 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. According to the appellant 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. The High 4 WA No.450 of 2025 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"). (b) According to the petitioner, 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 appellant deserves to be considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III. 3. In the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has partly
Arguments
3 - Smt. Bhawna Bagmare W/o Shri Suresh Kumar Bagmare At Present Posted As Ag-Iii At High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bodri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Alka Namdev W/o Shri Bihar Namdev C/o Arya Computer Job, Near State Bank Of India Main Branch Near Sbi Atm Machine Gandhi Chowk, Bilaspur, Chhattigarh At Present Posted As Ag-Iii At High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bodri Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Kumari Anita D/o Shri Bholaram C/o Shri Ravidas Inomerator, Office Of Deputy Director, Vatenary Health Services Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, At Present Posted As Ag-Iii At High Court Of Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh Bilaspur, District Bodri, 2 WA No.450 of 2025 6 - Kumari Poonam Nirmalkar D/o Shri Vedram Nirmalkar Resident Of H-36, Nutan Colony Sarkanda Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, At Present Posted As Ag-Iii At High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bodri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Kumari Poonam Sahu D/o Madanlal Sahu Near The Residence Of Member Of Parliament Mack Cloud Warehouse Road Bilaspur, At Present Posted As Ag-Iii At High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bodri, District Chhattisgarh Bilaspur, 8 - 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 9 - Rina Nirmalkar Working On The Post Of Assistant Grade 3, District And Session Court, Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 For Respondent Nos.3,4,5 & 8: Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate Ramesh Sinha, : Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.07.2025 1. The appellant/writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 03/04/2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of
Decision
allowed the writ petition and observed as under:- “24. As the petitioner was included in the wait list of 2014 due to wrong application of reservation Rules, 1997 and was denied appointment in view of not selecting the Women OBC category candidates as 5 WA No.450 of 2025 General category candidates, she shall be deemed to have been selected by the respondents/High Court. 25. As a consequence, necessary letter of appointment shall be issued to the petitioner. Her seniority for all purposes will however be counted only from the date of actual appointment and will be placed below in the seniority list of Assistant Grade-III and she will not be entitled to get any back-wages for the period she has not been worked with the High Court. 26. Consequently, Point No. 2 is also answered partially in favour of the petitioner by directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner without back- wages. 27. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.” 4. The writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner questioning the non-grant of seniority by the writ Court in spite of recording specific finding that because of wrong application of Reservation Rules, 1997, the petitioner was denied the appointment. He would submit that though the learned Single Judge has directed for issuance for appointment order to the petitioner, but declined to grant seniority for all purposes and directed to count the seniority only from the date of actual appointment and also directed that the petitioner be placed below in the seniority list of AG-III and she will not be entitled to get any back wages for the period when she has not been worked with the High Court. The instant appeal has been filed questioning the said part of non-grant of seniority and other consequential benefits to the petitioner along with other selected 6 WA No.450 of 2025 candidates in the same selection process on the post of AG-III. In support of his contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No.2939/2017 decided on 19.04.2023 (Neeraj Pradhan Vs. High Court of C.G. & Ors.) wherein, seniority was granted to the said writ petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/High Court would submit that the learned Single Judge has rightly decided the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. By referring the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Vivek Kaisth Vs. State of H.P. (2024) 2 SCC 269, Anmol Kumar Tiwari, Vs. State of Jharkhand (2021) 5 SCC 424 and Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Services Commission and Ors.(2007) 8 SCC 785, learned counsel would submit that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner in respect of seniority and other consequential benefits. He would also submit that during pendency of the writ petition, subsequent recruitments have been made on the post of AG-III and several candidates have been appointed, however, the petitioner never brought the said fact before the Court by impleading them as party respondent. According to the learned counsel, if seniority is granted to the petitioner, the seniority of other candidates who have already been appointed will be 7 WA No.450 of 2025 affected and the entire seniority list has to be re-shuffled and as such, at this juncture, the seniority claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 7. Bare perusal, it is apparent that the learned Single Judge after appreciating the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in Vivek Kaisth (Supra), Anmol Kumar Tiwari (supra) and Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) considered the claim of the petitioner about the seniority and other consequential benefits and observed that the petitioner was the wait list candidate and the said wait list candidate has no indefeasible right to be appointed but considering the fact that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have applied wrong position of law which has compelled her to be in the wait list of selected candidate, in view of available vacancies, the learned Single Judge deemed it proper to accommodate the petitioner without disturbing the selection and appointment already made to do complete justice. Thus, the said finding of the learned Single Judge is just and proper and there is no illegality at all. 8. It is noteworthy to mention here that during pendency of the writ petition, subsequent recruitments have been made on the post of AG-III and several candidates have been appointed, however, the 8 WA No.450 of 2025 petitioner never brought the said fact before the Court by impleading them as party respondent. If seniority is granted to the petitioner, the seniority of other candidates who have already been appointed will be affected and the entire seniority list has to be re- shuffled and as such, at this juncture, the seniority claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted. 9. With regard to non joinder of necessary parties, the Supreme Court in ‘n’ number of decisions categorically held that the High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents. (See: Ranjan Kumar v State of Bihar (2014) 16 SCC 187). 10. In view of foregoing, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order impugned, warranting interference of this Court. 11. Ergo, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep/Shoaib