Dismissed

Mrigendra Singh v. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited

Chhattisgarh HC18 Apr 2023WPS/4757/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a petitioner who participated in a subsequent selection process on a final basis is estopped from challenging that examination. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to declare the result of the re-examination within two months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of. All interim reliefs were vacated. The respondent was directed to declare the result of the re-examination within two months.

Mrigendra Singh Vs Chhattisgarh State Power… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 4757 of 2017

¶5

Mrigendra Singh S/o Shri Jaipendra Singh, Aged About 34 Years Presently Posted As Office Assistant Grade Ill, O/o Senior A O, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Madwa Power Plant, Madwa, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited Through Its Chairman, Vidhyut Seva Bhawan, Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Through Its Chairman, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Through Its Chairman, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Chief Engineer Training R And G , Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Gudiyari, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. P. Aacharya, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

18.04.2023

¶17

The petitioner has filed instant writ petition challenging the notification for examination dated 23.08.2017, by which notification for examination for appointment on the post of Account Trainee has been issued by the respondent.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is working as Office Assistant Grade-3 with the

¶19

¶20

respondent, has applied for the post of Office Assistant Grade -I, and according to him, for promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-1, the petitioner is required to undergo Account Trainee course of 3 months, which is conducted by the respondent and, thereafter to qualify in the written examination. The petitioner along-with other candidates have been directed to attend the Accounts Training of 3 months at Raipur vide order dated 07.10.2016. The petitioner participated in the said Training Course/programme. The said training course was from 01.12.2016 till 28.02.2017, but the result of the said examination has not been declared by the respondent authority on account of the fact that there was mall practice in the examination.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the basis of some complaints received by the respondents, the result have not been declared. Thereafter the respondent issued order dated 23.8.2017 Annexure P/1 by which the petitioner along with other candidates have been directed to attend the examination again to be conducted on 21.09.2017. The petitioner has challenged the said re-examination to be conducted on 21.09.2017 by filing the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that without examining the genuineness of the complaint the respondent has cancelled the entire examination vide its order dated 16.08.2017 which is illegal. He would further submit that as per circular dated 14.09.2005 Annexure P/6, issued by the respondents, on anonymous and pseudonymous complaint received from various sources including minister and VIPS, the head office should verify the genuineness of name and address of the complainant and if it is found false/fake they should write back to the concerned office from where the complaint was received. The circular further provides that no action should be taken on anonymous and pseudonymous complaint. He would further submit that the Chief Engineer, Training has submitted his report to the Chief Vigilance Officer of respondent company on 27.05.2017 and it has been informed that the address of the complainant could not be verified as such

¶22

¶23

the complaint deserves to be closed, still the respondent vide its memo dated 23.08.2017 has directed for re-examination which is illegal as such order dated 23.08.2017 deserves to be quashed and the respondents kindly be directed to declare the result of earlier examination. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in the case of Union of India v. Rajesh P.U., (2003) 7 SCC 385, Inderpreet Singh Kohlon vs. State of Punjab (2006) 11 SCC 356, Nidhi Kaim vs. State of MP (2016) 7 SCC 615, U.P. Jal Nigam vs. Ajit Singh Patel (20190 12 SCC 285 and Sachin Kumar vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (2021) 4 SCC 631.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that since there was a complaint received with regard to earlier examination conducted after completion of training, therefore, the respondents authority has cancelled the examination and directed for reexamination which was scheduled on 21.09.2017. Learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that the Director of CSPDTCL on the basis of verification of complaint by the Vigilance officer of the company it has been found that there is some mal practice in the examination accordingly it is directed to conduct examination afresh and accordingly impugned order Annexure P/1 has been issued.

¶25

This Court while admitting the petition on 13.09.2017 has directed that any examination held or participation therein, would be subject to final outcome of this writ petition. Since the petitioner & other candidates have already participated in the subsequent selection process without any reservation, therefore, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the subsequent examination conducted by the respondent as such the petition became infracutous. However, it is directed that the respondent shall declare the result of the examination conducted in pursuance of order dated 23.08.2017 on 21.09.2017 or on subsequent dates within two months from the date of receipt of

¶26

¶27

copy of this order, if it has not been issued.

¶28