Kanker, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Police D. K. S. Bhawan
Case Details
1 RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.08.07 11:33:08 +0530 2025:CGHC:38678 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7031 of 2019 1 - Yogesh Kumar S/o Surajlal Aged About 21 Years Village And Post Puri Tahsil Charama District Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Police D. K. S. Bhawan, Mantralaya , Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Superintendent Of Police District Kanker Collector Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director Of Police D. K. S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kisohre Kumar S/o Deendayal Aged About 33 Years C/o The Superintendent Of Police, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
9. Having considered aforesaid facts, it is clear that though petitioner had obtained higher total marks than private respondent No.4, but selection of private respondent No.4 was made in the reserve category of Home Guard, hence, his selection is not found to be against the applicable rules and advertisement. 10. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the Selection list and Waiting list of all category (Annexure P/2) prepared by the respondent authority. Therefore, no merit is found in the instant petition. 11. Consequently, this petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi
Arguments
: Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1, 2 & 3. : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No.4. : Mr. Sagar Soni, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi 2 Order on Board 05/08/2025 1. With the consent of both the parties, the instant writ petition is heard finally. 2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs: “10.1 This honorable Court may please call the records of the entire selection process for inspection and needful. 10.2 This honorable Court may please issue appropriate writ/directions to the respondents No.1 - 3 for appointing the petitioner. 10.3 This honorable Court may please grant cost & any other relief which this Honorable Tribunal may deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioners” 3. Facts of the case in nutshell is that respondent published advertisement dated 04.06.2016 (Annexure P/1) for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in various Districts of Bastar Division, in which District Kanker was also involved, wherein total 104 posts of Constable (GD) was to be recruited. Out of which 11 posts were reserved for OBC Category (non creamy layer). The petitioner also participated in the OBC category in the said recruitment process, in which various physical tests were conducted coupled with written examination. The petitioner did not get selected, therefore, he filed instant writ petition seeking relief as mentioned above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in OBC 3 category as per Selection List Annexure P/7 of OBC category, 11 candidates were selected, from whom private respondent No.4/Kisohre Kumar in OBC category had obtained grand total marks 132, whereas, the petitioner who had also participated in OBC category obtained grand total marks 136. Despite that the private respondent No.4 was selected by playing pick and choose manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since petitioner had obtained higher marks than the private respondent No.4, therefore, selection of private respondent No.4 was illegal, hence, he prayed that relief sought for by the petitioner may be granted to him and he be selected in the OBC category for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD). 5. Learned State counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 has filed its reply and referring to its reply would submit that advertisement was issued for selection of candidates in total 104 vacant posts of (UR-17, ST-62, SC-14, OBC (non creamy layer)-11) for District Kanker under Constable (GD) Recruitment Process, year – 2016. As per instruction of the Government, there was 10% horizontal and division wise reservation for Ex-serviceman, 25% for Nagar Sainik and 10% for woman candidates according to the advertisement. The recruitment process was conducted by the Selection Committee, Selection & Waiting List (Annexure P/2) was prepared. He further submits that the petitioner had filed 4 application in OBC category and he finds place in Waiting List at Sl. No.1 in OBC category. Learned State counsel further submits that though private respondent No.4/Kisohre Kumar had obtained less total marks i.e. 132 marks and the petitioner had obtained total 136 marks, but the private respondent No.4 was selected in the reserve category of Home Guard, therefore, only because total marks of petitioner was higher than the private respondent No.4, it did not entitle the petitioner to get selected for the post of Constable (GD). He further submits that selection process was conducted in accordance with the applicable rules and in terms of the advertisement. Therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the selection process to the post of Constable (GD), hence, petition is liable to rejected. 6. 7. Learned counsel for the private respondent No.4 has also filed its reply and referring to its reply he also extended his support to the contentions made by learned counsel for the State and prays that the instant petition is liable to rejected. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in record. 8. Perusal of Selection list of OBC category Annexure P/7, Selection list and Waiting list of all category Annexure P/2 and Merit list Annexure P/9, shows that petitioner had obtained total 136 marks, whereas, the private respondent No.4/Kishore Kumar had obtained total 132 marks, thus, total marks of the petitioner is 5 higher than the private respondent No.4/Kishore Kumar, but as per the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents and advertisement Clause-2, 25% posts were reserved for the Home Guard. The Selection list and Waiting list of all category Annexure P/2 and perusal of Selection list of OBC category Annexure P/7, shows that selection of private respondent No.4 was made in the category of Home Guard for which total 25% posts were reserved as per the advertisement against which 3 candidates were selected in the category of Home Guard by rounding of the percentage for the reserve post of Home Guard.