Rituraj Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

¶1

1

¶2

2024:CGHC:28875

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 2205 of 2013

¶6

Rituraj Sahu S/o Rajnarayan Sahu Aged About 22 Years Nehru Chowk Baloda Bazar, P.S. Tahsil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Civil District Raipur C.G. , Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2. The Collector Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3. Deputy Collector District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara District : BalodabazarBhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4. Rajesh Nasine Deputy Collector, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5. Shailendra Kumar Bhasgouri S/o Sonsay Bhasgouri Village And Post Office - Arjuni, Police Station And Tahsil Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Civil District Raiur C.G. District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶14

6. Ramesh Kumar Puraina S/o Bhonduram Puraina Police Colony, Quarter No. 1/5 Post Office Talibandh, P.S. Amanaka, Raipur, Revenue And Civil District Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

7. Roshan Lal Verma S/o Milaram Verma Village Khartora, Post Office Jarve, Tahsil Palari, Police Station, Revenue Distt. Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, C.G Civil Distt. Raipur C.G. , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶16

8. Yisha Bharti Kannoje D/o Devendra Kumar Kannoje R/o Civil Line Parsa Mandir Road, Police Station, Revenue District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, C.G. Civil District Raipur C.G , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

9. Bhumika Rani Kannoje D/o Devendra Kumar Kannoje Civil Line Parsa Mandir Road, Police Station Revenue District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, C.G. Civil District Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

2

¶19

10. Hriday Shankar Patel S/o Dwarika Prasad Patel Village And Post Amera, Tahsil Palari, Police Station, Revenue District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, C.G. Civil District Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶20

11. Mamta Verma W/o Rakesh Kumar Verma Village And Post Arjuni, Police Station, Reveue District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, C.G. Civil District Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶21

12. Dinesh Kumar Puraina S/o Bhonduram Puraina Amanaka Police Colony, Quarter No. 1/5 Post Office Tatibandh, P.S. Amanaka, Raipur, Revenue And Civil District Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶22

13. Girvar Kumar Puraina S/o Parsuram Puraina Gram Panchayat Accholi, Post Office Kusmandi, Police Station And Tahsil Palari, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, C.G. Civil District Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶23

14. Uddhav Kumar Bariha S/o Sakirtan Bariha R/o Village Nardha, Post Baya, Police Station And Tahsil Kasdol, Revenue District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, C.G. Civil District Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶24

... Respondents

¶25

For Petitioners : Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate For State/ Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 8 & 9 : Mr. Alok Bakshi, Advocate along with Ms. Kusum Lalchandani, Advocate For Respondents No. 13 & 14 : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate

¶26

(Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

¶27

Order On Board

¶28

02/08/2024

¶29

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶30

“10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records, pertaining to case of appointment/ selection to the post of Patwari held in the year of 2013 at District Baloda – Bazar – Bhatapara.

¶31

10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/wirts and set aside the impugned selection list (Annexure P- 1).

¶32

10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs of mandamus and direct to respondents authorities to issue fresh selection list according to advertisement/ instruction of state government/ rules.

¶33

10.4 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any

¶34

3

¶35

10.4 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and just.

¶36

10.5 Cost of the petition may also be awarded.”

¶37

2. The facts of the present case are as under:-

¶38

a) An advertisement was issued on 09.11.2012 for the selection of Patwari in District : Balodabazar-Bhatapara pursuant to instructions issued by the State of Chhattisgarh dated 31.07.2012. As per one of the conditions of the advertisement and the instructions, the candidate should be a resident of the District : BalodabazarBhatapara. The essential requirements as stated in the advertisement are as under:-

¶39

i. Candidate should have passed the higher secondary examination (10+2) from the State of Chhattisgarh.

¶40

ii. Candidate must have passed one-year diploma in computer application from a recognized institution from the Government/Semi-Government/Government of India/State Government. Further, the name of the recognized institution for diploma certificates in computer application is mentioned below:-

¶41

(a) One year diploma/certificate in Computer Operator and Programming Assistant (COPA) from recognized ITI,

¶42

(b) Modern Office Management (MOM) or Computer Science or 3 years diploma in information technology or equivalent diploma from polytechnic college of the state,

¶43

(c) One year postgraduate diploma in computer application or equivalent diploma from Pt.

¶44

4

¶45

Ravishankar University Raipur/ Guru Ghasidas University Bilaspur / Indira Gandhi Open University / Bhoj University,

¶46

(d) Diploma in Modern Office Management (MOM) (2 years below) from a recognized board of technical education/computer science state technical University,

¶47

(e) PG Diploma in computer science/computer application or post-graduation degree from any recognized university,

¶48

(f) Diploma under DOEACC Society New Delhi and,

¶49

(g) One year certificate for professional programming assistant and diploma computer operator from recognized I.T.I.

¶50

(b) The petitioner as well as the other eligible candidates submitted their applications for the post of Patwari, and a written examination was conducted on 03.03.2013. The petitioner and the private respondents participated in the recruitment process and appeared in the written examination; thereafter, the result was declared, and in the list of selected candidates, the name of the petitioner was not available. The petitioner, under RTI, applied for his answer sheets which were provided on 06.06.2013/10.06.2013. It was informed that during the written examination, the signatures of candidates in answer sheets were not taken, and the records of answer sheets and other documents were kept in the District Treasury Office, BalodabazarBhatapara.

¶51

(c) It is further stated that Ramesh Kumar was not a resident of District : Balodabazar – Bhatapara. Mr. Roshan Lal Verma did not

¶52

5

¶53

have live registration with the employment exchange. Ku. Yisha Bharti Kannoje and Bhumika Rani Kannoje did not have computer certificates from recognized institutions.

¶54

(d) The candidatures of Smt. Mamta Verma and Dinesh Kumar Puraina were rejected on the ground that they were not a resident of District : Balodabazar-Bhatapara, but they were declared qualified, and later on, selected.

¶55

(e) The candidatures of Girvar Kumar Puraina and Uddhav Kumar Bariha were rejected on the ground that they did not have a marksheet of computer courses, but subsequently, they were appointed.

¶56

3. Mr. Prakash Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per one of the conditions of the advertisement and instructions issued by the State Government, the candidate should be a resident of District Balodabazar – Bhatapara, whereas some of the private respondents were residents of other Districts, but their candidature was considered, and later on, they were appointed. He further submitted that some of the private respondents did not have the requisite computer course of two years as prescribed in the advertisement, but their names were taken into consideration for selection in the recruitment process. He also submitted that, from a perusal of the answer sheet of the petitioner, it is apparent that initially, he secured 59 marks, whereas his total marks would be more than 90, and his answer sheet was not correctly examined, verified and scrutinized by the examiner. It is further contended that the selection and appointment of the private respondents are erroneous, arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the rules prescribed in advertisements and instructions, therefore, the selection list is liable to be quashed.

¶57

4. On the other hand, Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, the learned Panel Lawyer would oppose. She submitted that the petitioner filed this petition after

¶58

6

¶59

participating in the entire recruitment process. With regard to the residence of private respondents in District Balodabazar – Bhatapara, she submitted that clarification was sought from those selected candidates, and later on, required domicile certificates were produced by them. She further submitted that respondent No. 11/Mamta Verma is a resident of another district, but she did not join the services, though an affidavit was submitted by her to the effect that she married a gentleman who is a permanent resident of District Balodabazar – Bhatapara, likewise, respondent No. 6/Ramesh Kumar Purainam also submitted his domicile certificate. It is further contended that out of 10 private respondents, at present, only four are working on the post of Patwari, whereas, respondent No. 5/Shailendra Kumar Bhasgouri and respondent No. 10/ Hriday Shankar Patel tendered their resignation; respondent No. 7/Roshan Lal Verma was not appointed; and respondents No. 6, 11, 12 did not join the services. With regard to the answer sheet, she submitted that answer sheets were examined by the experts and the petitioner has not challenged the answers given in the model answer and when he could not qualify for the examination, he filed this petition. With regard to certificates for computer education submitted by the private respondents, she stated that according to the condition given in the advertisement, a candidate who has passed a one-year diploma in computer education from a recognized institution from Government/Semi-Government/Government of India/State Government was entitled to participate in the recruitment process. It is further argued that the petitioner could not demonstrate that the private respondents did not have requisite qualifications at the time of submission of their application forms. It is also argued that the instant petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

¶60

5. Learned counsel appearing for the other respondents would support the contention made by Ms. Thakur.

¶61

7

¶62

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶63

7. From a perusal of the documents, it appears that the petitioner, private respondents, and other eligible candidates participated in the recruitment process for the 32 posts of Patwari pursuant to an advertisement dated 09.11.2012 issued by the Collector (Land Record), District Balodabazar – Bhatapara.

¶64

8. The essential qualification for the post of Patwari was Higher Secondary (10+2) and a one-year diploma in computer education from a recognized institution, viz:-

¶65

“1. One year diploma/certificate in Computer Operator and Programming Assistant (COPA) from recognized ITI,

¶66

2. Modern Office Management (MOM) or;

¶67

3. Computer Science or 3 years diploma in information technology or equivalent diploma from polytechnic college of the state;

¶68

4. One year post graduate diploma in computer application or equivalent diploma from recognized University;

¶69

5. Diploma Modern Office Management (MOM) (2 year below) from recognized board of technical education / computer science state technical university,

¶70

6. PG Diploma in computer science / computer application or post graduation degree from any recognized university, Various diploma under DOEACC society New Delhi and, one year certificate for professional programming assistant.”

¶71

9. The petitioner in this petition has stated that some of the private respondents did not have a two-year diploma certificate in computer application. The petitioner failed to demonstrate the fact that the diploma or certificate course produced by the private respondents was not recognized by the State of Chhattisgarh. According to one of the conditions of the advertisement, a oneyear diploma in computer education was valid for participating in the recruitment process. In the absence of any clinching material, it cannot be presumed that the private respondents did not have the required diploma in the

¶72

8

¶73

computer application or a certificate. Therefore, the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner appears to be misconceived.

¶74

10. With regard to the domicile certificate, it is stated that some of the private respondents were residents of other districts. The petitioner in the entire petition has not placed domicile certificates of those candidates; in reply, the State has categorically stated that after receiving complaints with regard to the domicile of a few of the respondents, clarifications were sought and their domicile was verified by the authorities. There are a total of 10 private respondents, and allegations with regard to other districts were against respondents No. 6 and 11. A notice was issued to both respondents, and sufficient documents were placed by the respondents before the authorities. Therefore, the contention raised by Mr. Tiwari appears to be contrary to the return filed by the State.

¶75

11. The petitioner had obtained his answer sheet under the Right to Information Act, as the contention is that the petitioner had secured more than 90 marks, but only 59 marks were awarded by the examiner. However, the petitioner has not sought any relief for re-valuation or re-checking of his answer sheets. Also, the High Court is not an expert in examining the validity of the answer sheets.

¶76

12. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the arguments raised by Mr. Tiwari cannot be entertained. Out of 10 private respondents, at present, only four are working on the post of Patwari. whereas, respondent No. 5/Shailendra Kumar Bhasgouri and respondent No. 10/ Hriday Shankar Patel tendered their resignation; respondent No. 7/Roshan Lal Verma has not been appointed; and respondents No. 6, 11, and 12 have not joined services.

¶77

13. It is also informed that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Patwari in the subsequent year. He participated in the entire selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.11.2012, and thereafter, he challenged the entire

¶78

9

¶79

recruitment process which is not permissible under the law.

¶80

14. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, the instant petition fails and

¶81

is hereby dismissed. No costs.

¶82

Sd/- ( Rakesh Mohan Pandey ) JUDGE

¶83

$iddhant

Rituraj Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rituraj Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.suresh Chandra Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Madhumati Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Ku.nishu Shriwas Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Hari Prasad Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattlal Kashyap Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.