In batch appeals, the High Court dismissed petitions challenging selection processes for government posts. The Court held that candidates who participated cannot later challenge the process or claim missed benefits.
The appeals were dismissed as they were devoid of merit, with no relief granted to the appellants.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 363 of 2016
{Arising out of order dated 21.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.1098 of 2013 and other connected matters}
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondents
WA No. 425 of 2016
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondents
WA No. 426 of 2016
---- Appellant
Versus
2
---- Respondents
WA No. 481 of 2016
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondents
WA No. 526 of 2016
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondents
WA No. 550 of 2016
---- Appellant
3
Versus
---- Respondents
WA No. 588 of 2016
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondents
WA No. 461 of 2016
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondents
4
For respective : Shri Rajeev Shrivastava along with Shri D.R. Patel, Appellants Shri Manoj Paranjpe along with Shri Anshul Tiwari, Shri Ishan Verma, Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocates For Respondent/ : Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Deputy Advocate General State and Shri Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice.
23/10/2019
5
Respondents, particularly the State, was submitted by Shri Sudeep Agrawal, the learned Deputy Advocate General and was assisted by Shri Amit Buxy, learned Panel Lawyer.
6
petitioners were not eligible to have the relief sought for and accordingly, their claim was turned down. This made them to approach this Court again, by filing writ petitions raising similar grievance and all the matters were considered together, leading to the final verdict dated 31.06.2016. As per the said judgment, the learned Single Judge observed that none the contentions raised by the writ petitioners was liable to be entertained, by virtue of the categorical declaration of law on the point by the Apex Court, and accordingly interference was declined and writ petitions were dismissed which led to the present appeals.
7
8
9
rank-list. This being the position, even if the Appellants succeed in any manner with regard to the merits involved, they cannot be directed to be included in the expired rank list, so as to give them appointment.
Sd/- Sd/- (P.R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge
Hem
3 issues framed by the court
Whether candidates who participated in selection and were weeded out due to age can subsequently challenge the selection process or claim additional age relaxations.
Whether the Court can be approached for age relaxation benefits via a 'minus' or negative trait of a mistake extended to another candidate.
Whether an appointment can be made to a select list whose validity and term have long expired.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madras Institute of Development Studies & Another v. K. Sivasubramaniyam & OthersApplied¶89
Madras Institute of Development Studies & Another v. K. Sivasubramaniyam & Others ; (2016) 1 SCC 454 · Who else cites this
Chandigarh Administration and Another v. Jagjit Singh and AnotherReferred¶92
Chandigarh Administration and Another v. Jagjit Singh and Another, AIR 1995 SC 705 · Who else cites this
Mukesh Kumar Yadav
Kishore Kumar Gajendra
Ashish Kumar Choubey
Ved Prakash Sharma
Pawan Kumar Dewangan
Sunil Kumar Patel
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Parth Prateem Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
