High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37132-DB NAFR JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 10:32:51 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 547 of 2025 Smt. Hiramani Singh W/o Late Ramchandra Singh, Aged About 36 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Kevra (Nawapara), Tahsil Lakhanpur Distt Sarguja (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 2 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Women And Child Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 3 Janpad Panchayat Lakhanpur Through Chief Executive Officer, Revenue And Civil Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) 4 Project Officer, Unified Women And Child Development Project Lakhanpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) 5 Collector, Sarguja Revenue And Civil District Sarguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 2
Legal Reasoning
this Court in WPS No. 3078 of 2018, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner/ appellant herein was not eligible to participate in the aforesaid recruitment process in absence of requisite eligibility 3 criteria. 3. Facts of the present case, are that, the appellant/ writ petitioner, respondent No.6 and other candidates applied for appointment to the post of 'Anganwadi Worker’ at Center Navapara, Village Kevra. Tehsil Lakhanpur, District Sarguja and respondent No. 6 was appointed vide order dated 26.08.2014. Thereafter, the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Collector, Sarguja against the order of appointment dated 26.08.2014 on the ground that the appellant was meritorious than respondent No.6 as she secured 69.44% marks, whereas respondent No.6 secured 43.60 % marks, which was allowed. Thereafter, Respondent No.6 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Sarguja, who vide order dated 21.03.2018 allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.6 and set-aside the order passed by the Collector, Sarguja on the ground that the appellant herein passed Class-12th, required qualification, after the cutoff date. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide the order impugned. Thus, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Single Judge committed serious error in not considering the fact that apart from passing of Class 12th, the petitioner has secured more marks than respondent No. 6. He further submits that merely 4 on the basis of result of class 12th appointment of Aganwadi Worker cannot be made and other requirements are also to be fulfilled. He further submits that the appellant is working for more than 7 years and in particular the petitioner is more suitable and meritorious. He also submits that the second appeal preferred before the Commissioner, Division Sarguja was not maintainable. He further prays that the present appeal be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that against the order of the Collector, Sarguja, an appeal was preferred whereas according to the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, respondent No.6 should have preferred a revision. They would further submit that the nomenclature of an application would not affect its merit. They would further contend that the required qualification for the post of 'Anganwadi Worker' was 12th or 11th (preceding) board examination. They would also contend that the appellant had attached a copy of the mark-sheet of Class-10 only and she passed the Class-12th examination after the expiry of last date for the submission of the application form. They would also contend that the learned Commissioner, Division Sarguja had considered these aspects of the matter and allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.6 and the learned Single Judge has 5 also passed a speaking and reasoned order after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective. They would pray for dismissal of the instant appeal. 6. In the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:- 9. The first contention raised by Mr. Khan with regard to the maintainability of the appeal preferred by respondent No.6 before the Commissioner, Division Sarguja. is hereby rejected, on the ground that the nomenclature of the application is of no consequence. 10) A scrutiny of the record of the learned Commissioner, Division Sarguja would show that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification i.e. 12th pass on the date of the advertisement, particularly on the last date of the submission of the application form. The petitioner failed to produce documents to establish that on the cut-off date, she had the requisite qualification. 11) Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was not eligible participate in the aforesaid recruitment process in the absence of requi eligibility criteria: the order passed by the learned Commissioner, Sarguja Divisi dated 21.03.2018 does 6 not require interference by this Court. 12) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. The writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner reiterating the same plea which has been taken before the learned Single Judge and challenging the order dated 07.03.2025 passed in WPS No. 3078 of 2018 and praying that the appellant be appointed as Aganwadi Worker. 9. Bare perusal of the records show that requisite qualification for appointment for the post of Aganwadi Worker as per advertisement dated 02.04.2008 was certificate of Class 11th or Class 12th ( preceding). And perusal of the records further shows that the appellant had attached a copy of the mark-sheet of Class- 10th only and she passed the Class-12th examination after the expiry of last date for the submission of the application form. 10. A candidate lacking the required qualifications at the time of advertisement for a public job is ineligible for appointment. Courts have consistently upheld the principle that fulfilling the eligibility criteria at the time of the advertisement is crucial for a valid appointment, and subsequent qualification acquisition does not 7 rectify the initial ineligibility. 11. It is settled law that eligibility criteria / conditions, unless provided otherwise in the extant rules or the advertisement, must be fulfilled by the candidate by the last date for receipt of applications specified in the advertisement . 12. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Reported in (2013) 11 SCC 58 has held as under:- 17. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar reconsidered and explained the judgment of Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993)10 observing: (Chander Shekhar case", SCC pp. 21-22, para 6) "6. The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing 8 it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment." (emphasis added)….. 13. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, we are of the view that the order passed by learned Single Judge is just and proper and needs no interference. 14. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar
Arguments
6 Smt. Kavita Singh W/o Suresh Kumar, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kevra (Nawapara) P.S. Lakhanpur Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) 7 Commissioner Sarguja Division, Revenue And Civil District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. B.L. Dembra, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. B.L. Dembra Advocate for the appellant and also Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Dy. A.G. for the State and Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 6. 2. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of