1 - Municipal Corporation, Raipur Through The Commissioner, Office of The Municipal Corporation, Raipur v. 1 - Mahesh Prasad Gupta S/o
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2992-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 14 of 2025 1 - Municipal Corporation, Raipur Through The Commissioner, Office of The Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District Raipur - 492001, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Mahesh Prasad Gupta S/o Shri Ramsiya Gupta, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Behind Jalaram Temple, Shahid Nagar, Khamtarai, Raipur - 492001, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Awadhesh Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17-01-2025 1. Heard Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Preeti Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Awadhesh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on I.A. No. 01 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No.01 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 52 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant Municipal Corporation Raipur against the impugned order dated 28-08- 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.2820/2015
Decision
whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is disposed of with liberty to make detailed representation to the respondent Municipal Corporation, Raipur and the authority concerned shall consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Fireman or place him somewhere else either in Home Guard or SDRF as per its convenience. 4. Brief facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the writ petition as well as the writ appeal are that, the respondent/present appellant had issued an advertisement for filling up the vacancy on the post of Fireman Grade-2 on 12-11- 2010. The total 46 posts were advertised, out of which 7 posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes category, 10 posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribes category, 6 posts were reserved for OBC category and remaining 23 posts were for unreserved category. After conducting the recruitment process the select list was published on 29-06-2013 and the name of the petitioner (Mahesh Prasad Yadav) was placed at Serial No.2 in the waitlist for the post of Fireman Grade-2 (General category). When a 3 selected candidate did not join the services, the candidate who was at serial No.1 on the waitlist was issued notice to join on the said post, but he also did not turn up to join, but, thereafter no notice was issued to the petitioner whose name was at Serial No.2 on the waitlist. Since one candidate has not joined the post and the person whose name at Serial No.1 in the waitlist has also not joined the services, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for appointment on the said post, for which he filed the writ petition claiming for direction to consider the name of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Fireman Grade-2. After hearing the parties learned Single Judge has passed the order granting liberty to the petitioner to move his detailed representation to the respondent, Municipal Corporation and the authority concerned was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner for his appointment to the post of Fireman or to place him somewhere else either in the Home Guard or in the SDRF as per its convenience. Hence, the present petition. 5. Leaned counsel for the writ appellant, Municipal Corporation would submit that the learned Single Judge has erred in observing that the respondent Corporation has not considered the claim of the petitioner to give him appointment despite having vacancy on the post. He would also submit that due to the model Code of conduct appointment order/notice could not be issued to the petitioner, but the select list and wait list was got expired after the period of one year of its issuance and now the petitioner 4 cannot claim as the matter of right to be appointed on the said post. Therefore, no direction can be issued to the writ appellant to appoint the petitioner on the post of Fireman or to adjust him in any other place like Home Guard or SDRF. Therefore, the impugned order is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner appeared on advance copy has supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition it reflects that the final select list was issued on 29-06-2013 and since the post were vacant as some of the candidates were not joined on the post of Fireman Grade-2, the candidate whose name reflected at Serial No.1 in the waitlist was issued to appointment order on 25-02-2014, but he too has not joined the services and thereafter, the petitioner was recommended for his appointment as his name reflects at serial No.2 of the waitlist. Since the select list and wait list was issued on 29-06-2013 and the same were effective upto one year, i.e., 28-06-2014, but prior to that on 17-05-2014 the name of the petitioner was recommended to be appointed on the post of Fireman Grade-2 as the other candidate who were above him in the select list and waitlist had not joined, he was entitled to be given appointment on the said post. Subsequently, his name has not been 5 considered for appointment because of the reason that the period of one year of the validity of the select list as well as waitlist was over. Although the model Code of conduct was effective at that time, but when the appointment order was issued on 25-02-2014 to the person whose name was at Serial No.1 in the waitlist and he could not join, the appointment order could have been issued to the petitioner also at that time itself. The learned Single Judge has also considered that there was sufficient time for the Municipal Corporation to communicate the petitioner to join the services and therefore, the petitioner was directed to make a detailed representation to the respondent Municipal Corporation who shall consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Fireman or in any other place like Home Guard or SDRF. 9. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Aadil