The High Court quashed orders by Collector and Commissioner rejecting petitioner Hema Bai's appeal and confirming another candidate. The appointment was found illegal as the finding on marks was based on conjecture without documentary evidence.
Impugned orders dated 24.03.2011 and 25.01.2010 are quashed. Writ petition is allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
^^^•^iS^1 ^•-^y^"""^-<^ ^.•••".''/i''i0-""" ^i.a.Ayi""" ...t-;';"\ 2^3 ^;::...-^VA "" c^
'3t/''
"^-iT1 Srat. Hema Bai wife of Chetanram Kurrai, aged about-26 years, R/o Gram Panchayat Dudhiya, T Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.).
•><•
^ "•> A^1 ^. .il A
Sint. Oinlata wife of Mukhirara Kurmi aged about 25 years, R/o villageDughiya. Gram Panchayat Dudhiya, TahsilKawardha, Distt. Kabirdham If 1'^, ;i 2. Comraissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur '* ^ ^sp,). ^ •cinatp. ,, ...3. Collector, Kabirdhara ^ - 4. Chief Execiitive Officer, Janpad .?' Panchayat Kawardha, Distt. sr^ ^. S ^. ^r. 5. Project Officer, Integrated Child Development project, Kawardha Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.).
fST]
he petitioner respectfully begs to submit as under:-
As shown in the cause title
As shown in the cause title
^ f^
.J^
HIGH COURTOF CHHATnSGARM : BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION (S) N0.2068 OF 2011
PETITIONER
Smt. Hema Bai
Versus
RESPONDENTS
Smt.Omlafa&CMbere
Wnt Petitton under Artlcte 226/227 irftheConstitutionorimlia)
Single Bench : Mon'ble Shri Satish K. AgnihoW, J.
Present:Shri M.K.Sinha, Advocate for the petnionw.
Sbri Basant Dewanoan, AdvocatefoFthe mspundent No.1 Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the Stat^respondente No.2,3 & 4.
Shri SuryakantMishra.Advocatefarthe r^pandentNo.S
ORDER
(Passedonthis12*ldwofApril,2012)
Challengein thispetitioni& to theonlwdated 24^3^011 (Annexiwe P-1) p^sed by the Commlssloner, Raipur Diyistofl, -RalpUF, eonfiiming
the order dated 25.01.2010 (Annacure P-7), p^sed by the Gollector,
Kabirdham and further seeks a direcBon to confinn the appomftnent order dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure P-4), passed in favour ef the petitioner.
TheTacts, in brief, are thatttie petitioner and r^pondent No;1 alor^wlth othere, apolied for appointment on the post of AnaarAadi vrorheT in Angantodi Center;Sul raparaBudbiya,.tanpadPancha^Ka»fairi(ia. The Chief Executive Officer, afterhaving coBside«ed1heappltoatlons of atl the applicants, selected the petittoner as Ar^anbadi worker. Thereagainst^ it appears that an appeal was flled betere the ColleetoT.
The Cottector, vide orelerdated 25.01.2010 (Annexure P-7^ cwisidered
the submission made bytherespondentNo.lthatths pettttonerwas ^* standard pass candidate and the respondent hto.t bad obtamed 8
examlnation Gertificate. n was further contended thatforappoinbneirt en
ttie post of Anganbadiwoflar.theessentiatqualifieathmfemetricpass:
however, in ab?ence of a candidate havtng metric p^s qualifeatton, the preferenee shou!d be given to classS pass. T^us,the respondert No.1 was entitled to be appointed in place of the prttttoner. Tt»€olteetor, aftsr holding that both the candidates had presed 5ttl standard
2
'• •• S! s ''^•:^^&.. y
;-.t-"'S.''
examinatton and further it was held that responderrt No.1 Omtda had obtained more marks, however. the appoinftnent was giwn to the petitioner on the ground that the Gertificate filed by the petitioner vws signed by Sarpanch and Secretary Jointly, when in case (rf respondent No.1, the same was signed by Sarpanch onty. Thereagainst, the appeal was preferred before the Commissioner. The Commtssioner, vide GRtef dated 24.03.2011 (Annexure P-1) rejected the apfwal filed by the petitioner.
ThecaseofthepetitionerbeforethisCourtisthatthereisnomateHal-to show that the respondent No.1 had obtained more marks. The finding. recorded by the authorities below is on the bssis ofsoiiiecoiflaetura® and guesswork, not on the b^is of any documentsamlcerttficates.lt was further contended that s'nee bolh Lhe oandi<iate have wssed 5B1 standard a<amination and the petttloner has obtaned 4^ raarks,^^ is eviderrt from the report of Integrated ChildWeffare Projest OfReer (.page 28). The respondent No.1 has ateo not produce any doeuments before this Court to indtoate that the respondent No.1 had obtained moie mart® than the petittoner. There is no whisoer even in the return fited bythe respondent No.1 in thls Court in respect of the martos obtain«t bythe petitipner as weS as by the respondent No.1. Even the resporalent No.4 i.e. the Chief Executive Offtoer hasalso not said anything about th® marte obtained by the respondent No.1 to the effect that she had obtained more marks. It is further brmight to the notice ef this Court by the leamed counsel for the petfttoner that petitioner has ateo oWained Pre-Middle Qass CerUficate having 62.20% marlcs ^iage no.SQ. Thus, the finding recorded by the Collector in its order dated 25.01.2010 and - confirmed by the Commissioner in its order 24.03.2011, is illegat as not based on any evidence on record.
In view of foregoing, the impugned ordere dated24.03.2011 (Annexure P-1) & 25.01.2010 (Annexure P-7) passed bytbeauthoritfesbelowaFe quashed. Thewrit petition is allowed. No orderastocosts.
Sd/Satish K. Agnihotri Judge
ashdt
3 issues framed by the court
Whether impugned orders confirming appointment of respondent No.1 rejecting petitioner's appeal are legal.
Whether finding recording of collector and commissioner regarding marks obtained by candidates is based on evidence.
Whether impugned orders are to be quashed for lack of evidence.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Hema Bai
Smt. Omlata
Commissioner, Raipur Division
Collector, Kabirdham
Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Kawardha
Project Officer, Integrated Child Development project, Kawardha
Satish K. Agnihotri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
