Nafr High Court
Case Details
Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.01.31 10:52:29 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:4119 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7734 of 2024 • Savitri Luxmi Chandrakar W/o Dr. Gajendra Baghel Aged About 48 Years Presently Working As Pharmacist Grade Iind At Dr. Br Ambedkar Memorial Hospital Medical College Raipur And Residing At Behind Balaji Hospital Prakash Furniture Lane, Dubey Colony Mowa Raipur C.G. --- Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Fisheries, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director Directorate Of Fosheries, Indravati Bhawan, 4th Floor, B-Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur C.G. --- Respondent WPS No. 7754 of 2024 • Devendra Kumar Sen S/o D.R. Sen Aged About 47 Years Presently Working In The Office Of Directorate Fisheries Indravati Bhawan 4th Floor B - Block R/o Hig - 55/103, Near Registry Office Sector - 29 Atal Nagar Nava Raipur Cg- 492101 ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of
Legal Reasoning
Fishries Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawam Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 2. Director Directorate Of Fishries Indravati Bhawan 4th Floor B - Block Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur --- Respondents WPS No. 7821 of 2024 • Jageshwar Prasad Sahu S/o Late I R Sahu Aged About 47 Years Presently Working In The Office Of Deputy Director Fisheries, Raipur And Residing At House No. P2b/425, Near Krishna Public School, Sector 27, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492015 ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Fishries, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director Directorate Of Fishries, Indravati Bhawan, 4th Floor, B-Block, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondents For Petitioners For Respondents : : Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Ajeet Singh, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 22/01/2025 1. The present writ petitions are not preferred against any particular order(s) or action of the respondents but it is being filed before this Hon'ble Court for seeking a direction from this Hon'ble Court to the Respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioners herein for appointment to the post of Assistant Fisheries Officer and to consider the case for appointment to the vacant posts which are available under 3 the quota of direct recruitment and on which no appointment has been made by the respondents herein. 2. By the instant petitions petitioners prays for following relief(s):- a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction thereby directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for appointment in the vacant posts of Assistant Fisheries Officer, and/or, b) Pass any other order that this court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners are that on 03/03/2014, Respondent No.2 issued advertisement for filling 8 posts of Assistant Fisheries Officer. The Petitioners, being an OBC candidates, having all requisite qualifications applied for the post of Assistant Fisheries Officer however their candidature were rejected on the ground that the petitioners have not received training of fisheries course from recognized institute of Chhattisgarh without duly considering the fact that the petitioners were having degree of M.Sc Zoology. The rejection of candidature of petitioners were communicated vide letter dated 30/05/2014. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing a writ petition bearing WPS No. 2669 of 2014 and the aforesaid writ petition was initially dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Bench vide order dated 18/04/2023. The Petitioners preferred an appeal bearing WA No. 318 of 2023 along with other connected appeals before the Hon'ble Division Bench. 4 The said writ appeal was allowed by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 16/08/2023 setting aside the order passed by the Hon'ble Single bench and remitted the matter back to the Hon'ble Single Bench for fresh adjudication. It is relevant to mention that in addition to remanding the matter, the Hon'ble Division Bench also held that the action of the Respondents holding petitioners as ineligible was illegal and bad in law and the Hon'ble Division Bench held that the petitioners have requisite educational qualification and placing their name in non-eligible list was also illegal and unjustified. Thereafter, upon remitting, the Hon'ble Single Bench
Decision
adjudicated the matter afresh & allowed the Writ Petition vide order dated 19/10/2023 with a direction to the Respondents to issue appointment order to the Petitioner and 2 others similarly placed candidates also who had approached this Hon'ble Court. However, due to non-compliance of the aforesaid order the Petitioner preferred Contempt Petitions. Thereafter, the Respondent - State, after a delay of 297 days, preferred a Writ Appeal against the aforesaid order dated 19/10/2023 passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench and the said writ appeal was allowed vide order dated 18/10/2024, 23/10/2024 only to the extent that direction by Hon'ble Single Bench for issuance of appointment order in favor of the petitioners were set aside and the Respondent was directed to consider the case of the Petitioner & 2 other candidates afresh along with the candidates who were already appointed noting that the 5 appointments were subject to final outcome of the writ petitions. After passage of 10 years, the petitioners have succeeded in getting their eligibility decided and now at this stage the interview rounds of the petitioners would be held. Subject to how much marks the petitioners gets in interview, their candidature for post would be decided. However, it is apprehension of petitioners that the respondent would award them less marks consciously so that the candidates who were appointed earlier and who have spent more than 10 years of service and their promotion being due in near future are not disturbed. Therefore, by way of this petition the petitioners have brought to knowledge of this Hon'ble Court that as of today 8 posts are lying vacant with the respondent and that the respondent may be directed to consider the case of petitioners keeping in mind the 8 vacant post and may consider appointing the petitioners on the said vacant post as it would not cause any prejudice to any other appointees. Hence, the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in light of return filed by the respondents as also letter dated 15.01.2025 it seems that the grievance of the petitioners are likely to be redressed as such at this stage the petitioners are praying that the respondent authority may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the vacant post of Assistant Fisheries Officer. 5. Learned counsel for the State has no objection as they have 6 already issued the letter dated 15.01.2025 which has been annexed along with the return filed by the respondents. 6. Prayer seems to be fair and reasonable. 7. In view of the aforesaid, respondent/State is directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners in light of letter dated 15.01.2025 within a outer limit of 45 days from the production of copy of this order. 8. With these observation(s)/direction(s) instant petitions are disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE vaishali