Ashawini Kumar Sinha Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2033 of 2013

Ashawini Kumar Sinha S/o Mannuram Sinha Aged About 29 Years R/o Gram Bagode, Post Lalgam Markatola, Tah Narharpur, Thana and Distt Kanker, CG --- Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors S/o Aged About 48 Years Through Its Secretary, Nagriya Prashasan Evam Vikas, Sanchanalaya, Naya Raipur, CG.

¶6

Director Nagriya Prashasan Evam Vikas, Snachanalaya, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

The Collector North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Kanker, Dist Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Govindram Jain S/o Ghurauram Jain Aged About 38 Years R/o Vill Thelkaboda, Post Govindpur, Ps Kanker, Dist Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent.

¶10

(Cause title downloaded from CIS periphery)

¶11

--------------------------------------- For Petitioner For Res No.1 to 3/State	-------------------------------------------------------- : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. GA.
For Res No.4	: Mr. Sourabh Sharma with
	Mr. K. Rohan, Advocates.
For Res No.5	: Mr. P. K. Tulsyan, Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶13

23.01.2024

¶14

This petition has been filed for quashing of appointment order dated 20.02.2013 passed by respondent No.4 in favour of respondent No.5 and to direct the respondent/Authorities to appoint the petitioner on the post of Fire Chalak in pursuance of Advertisement dated 12.10.2012 (Annexure-P/1).

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 has issued an advertisement on 12.10.2012 for direct recruitment to the post of Fire Chalak (Annexure-P/1), whereby, respondent No.5 has

¶16

been selected for the said post vide Annexure-P/5 in arbitrary manner. It is further stated that respondent No.5 has shown his date of birth as 01.07.1975 and on the submission of application form, his age was found to be more than 37 years and as such he was not eligible as per criteria of the said recruitment. He also submits that respondent No.5 is less meritorious than the petitioner as he secured only 47 % in Class VIII, whereas, the petitioner secured 66 % in the said Class. Therefore, appointment of respondent No.5 is illegal and arbitrary and same deserves to be quashed. He prays to issue suitable direction for appointment of the petitioner on the post of Fire Chalak.

¶17

Respondent No.4 has filed its reply and categorically stated that one post of Fire Chalak was issued by the Department through direct recruitment and same were published in the news paper and total 24 applications were received for the said post in which 16 candidates were found eligible, however, only 15 candidates appeared for the interview. It is further stated that the District Selection Committee divided 30 marks for the educational qualification, experience, skill test, interview etc. and tabulation chart was prepared in which respondent No.5 secured higher marks i.e. 19.3, whereas, the petitioner could secure only 15.06 marks. It is further stated that respondent No.5 belongs to OBC category, therefore, as per relevant rules, he was not overage and was entitled for age relaxation. Thus, selection of respondent No.5 is well merited.

¶18

Learned counsel for respondents/State and respondent No.5 also filed their reply in similar manner and supports the contention of respondent No.4. Learned State counsel submits that for the

¶19

candidates belonging to OBC category, age relaxation of 5 years has been provided at the relevant time, therefore, respondent No.5 was not overage at the time of selection and on such score also, this petition has no merit.

¶20

Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has filed corrigendum notice dated 26.10.2012 duly supported with covering memo. The said notice was issued by respondent No.4 in the daily newspaper i.e. Nai Duniya on 30.10.2012 in connection with Advertisement dated 12.10.2012 (Annexure-P/1), whereby, maximum age limit, without any relaxation, was mentioned as 35 years. He submits that even if age relaxation of 5 years is granted to respondent No.5 along with age relaxation prescribed for OBC category, then in such case also, he has fulfilled the criteria of said selection and thereby, this petition has no merit.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the petition carefully.

¶22

Perusal of documents reveals that the petitioner has wrongly mentioned the fact that he is more meritorious than respondent No.5 as in the application form he has mentioned the details of educational qualification and secured higher marks, but in the selection process by the Committee, he secured less marks than respondent No.5. Even the petitioner, in aggregate, has only secured 15.6 marks which is less than the last candidate of the said recruitment, namely, Nand Kishore Santhiya who has secured 16 marks. Further, the Selection Committee has given the marks on the basis of educational qualification, interview as well as on the basis of skill test. Even each panelist has awarded separate marks to the

¶23

candidates and same were mentioned in the tabulation list. Therefore, it is very much explicit that no compromise was done on merits while selecting the candidates and same was done in a transparent manner.

¶24

For the forgoing, this petition sans merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶27

Ajay

Ashawini Kumar Sinha v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashawini Kumar Sinha v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Soni Vs Tahsildar

Smt. Pushpa Kashyap Vs Omkar Kashyap (Sanik No. 15449683 H Constable)

Ravi Kumar Nair Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramgulal Nagvanshi Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Kishore Kumar Baid Vs Shri Suresh P. Bohra

Archana Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh