Jainandan Kumar Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

¶1

Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO

1

2024:CGHC:35758

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 2832 of 2013

¶7

1 - Jainandan Kumar Patel S/o Shri Damrudhar Patel Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Mahuatikra, Pathalgaon, Thana And Post Pathalgaon, Dist Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Commissioner Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Department, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Collector Jashpur, Collectotate Building, Jashpur, Dist Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Shri Tika Shankar Jaiswal S/o Shri Bhagirathi Jaiswal Aged About 28 Years R/o Tahsil Colony, Duldula, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner	: Shri Amrito Das, Advocate.
For Respondents/State	: Shri Satish Gupta, G.A.
For Respondent No.4	: Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶17

12.09.2024

¶18

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:-

¶19

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/ quash the entire recruitment process conducted by the Collector (Tribal Welfare Section),

¶20

2

¶21

District Jashpur pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.03.2012 for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-III.

¶22

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the selection and appointment order dated 26.10.2012 (ΑΝNEXURE P-1) to the extent respondent No.4 has been appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III.

¶23

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ directing respondent-authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-III.

¶24

10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court, may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶25

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to advertisement issued by the Collector, District Jashpur for 113 posts of Assistant Grade-III, the petitioner participated as member of Other Backward Class. He would submit that according to one of the conditions of the advertisement the permanent residents of District Jashpur were permitted to participate in the recruitment process and this condition is violative under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that even in the recruitment process and in preparation of merit list there were various irregularities, therefore, the advertisement and the entire selection process may be quashed.

¶26

1. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner is resident of District Jashpur, he

¶27

3

¶28

participated in the advertisement and his name was in the merit list at Sr. No.75; he had secured 69.06 marks but he did not come in the merit, therefore, he was not selected. They would submit that the petitioner after participating in the recruitment process has filed this petition challenging therein the entire recruitment process, which is not permissible. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would further submit that respondent No.4 had secured 71 marks and another candidate namely Deepak Kumar Gupta, who was at Sr. No.62 in the merit list had secured 70.5 marks but he has not been arrayed as respondent.

¶29

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record.

¶30

1. With regard to weightage to local resident of Jashpur, the petitioner cannot challenge it as he is resident of District Jashpur, he participated in the examination, therefore, this ground is not available to him. As the petitioner participated in the recruitment process as member of Other Backward Class, his name was at Sr. No.75 in the merit list and he secured 69.06 marks but he could not be considered for selection by the Selection Committee as he could not secured the higher marks.

¶31

1. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter.

¶32

7 ) Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶35

Nimmi

Jainandan Kumar Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jainandan Kumar Patel 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

Madan Lal Sidar (Died and Deleted) Though Lrs. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Jayant Kumar Singh Vs The Principal, Sainik School Ambikapur

Anand Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

South Estern Coal Field Limited Vs Smt. Reeta

Saurabh Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhaniram Sahu Vs Smt. Meenadevi