Dismissed

Sanjeev Dwivedi v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC5 Feb 2024WPS/3362/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition challenging the selection process for Computer Data Entry Operators. The petitioner argued that the Selection Committee was improperly constituted and age relaxation was invalid. The Court rejected the claims, finding the selection was fair, non-biased, and conducted on merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the selection process and the appointment was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Sanjeev Dwivedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 3362 of 2011

¶5

Sanjeev Dwivedi S/o Shri Shivnath Dwivedi, resident of Qr.No.1, Vijay Puram, Phase-II, in front of Science College, Sipat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, DKS Bhawan, Raipur.

¶9

Nagar Palik Nigam, Bilaspur through its Commissioner, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur (CG)

¶10

Mayor in Council, Nagar Palik Nigam, Bilaspur, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur

¶11

Balakrushna Varma, son of late Pancharam Varma, aged about 42 years, Qr. No.278, Yadunandan Nagar, Bilaspur

¶12

Santosh Kumar Jaiswal, son of Shri Hargun Prasad, Sai Mandir Road, Jarhavata, Bilaspur

¶13

Sanjay Mishra, son of Late R.S. Mishra, aged about 42 years, resident of in front of P. Munnulal Shukla School, Godpara, Bilaspur

¶14

Ram Pravesh Pathak, son of Late Trilokya Nath, resident of Near Hero Honda Show Room, Maharana Pratap Chowk Bilaspur

¶15

Gopi Acharya, son of late D.C. Acharya, resident of MIG A/6 Krushna Vihar Colony, Choti Koni, Bilaspur

¶16

---- Respondent

¶17

For Petitioner Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhwaha, Advocate For Respondents 4 & 6 Mr. Rahul Kumar Advocate on behalf of Smt. Anubhuti Marhas, Advocate For Respondent No.7 Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate

¶18

¶19

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶20

6/2/2024

¶21

This petition is filed challenging the appointment made in pursuance of the advertisement dated 7.8.2010-Annexure P/2 made by respondent No.2 for the post of Computer Data Entry Operator. By the impugned advertisement, 11 posts of Computer Data Entry Operator were advertised for different categories and after completion of the selection process, a merit list was prepared vide Annexure R-2/1. By way of this petition, the entire selection process has been prayed to be quashed as the same is in violation of the norms and conditions of the advertisement.

¶22

Brief facts of the case are that on 7.8.2010, respondent No.2 published an advertisement inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment on the post(s) of Computer Data Entry Operator by way of direct recruitment. The petitioner also applied for such post in the General Category. The petitioner has mainly challenged the Selection Process on the ground that the Selection Committee has not been formed as per the Schedule under the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palik Nigam (Adhikhariyon Tatha Sewakon Ki Niyukti Thatha Seva Ki Sharten) Niyam , 2007 (in short “the Rules, 2007”). The Committee comprised of 4 members, out of which, one member -Mr. R. Narayana, Finance Officer, was not holding any substantive post in the concerned Municipal

¶23

¶24

Corporation and more so, no head of the concerned Department was included in the Committee as a Member. The entire Selection was concluded at the hands of Mr. R. Narayana, who compromised in the Committee as one of the Members. Further, even the Mayor in Council found some irregularity in the said selection. Though the State earlier rejected the proposal of age relaxation of the two candidates namely Balakrushna Verma and Sanjay Mishra, however, after five months, vide letter dated 24.8.2011-Annexure R-2/4,the State changed its own verdict and granted relaxation to them by referring to Rule 16 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Servants) Rules, 2007, whereas, there was no such provision in this regard. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to quash the entire selection process.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that since the present petitioner has not scored good marks, he was not placed in the Merit List-Annexure R- 2/1. He would further submit that another applicant- Sachin Mishra, who was placed at Sl. No.8 in the merit list, had also challenged the said selection by filing WPS No.6036/2011. However, the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.6.2018 by observing in para 14 of the said order that Rule 16 clearly says that such relaxation can be granted when the Appointing Authority feels that it would be just and equitable for grant of relaxation. He submits that if the State

¶26

¶27

had extended special relaxation in favour of Sanjay Mishra and Balakrushna Verma invoking the power vested in it under Rule 16 of the Rules, 2007, the same cannot be said to be unjust or inequitable nor it can be said to be bad in law, admittedly malafide or contrary to the Rules. Learned counsel for the State also submits that a proper selection Committee was constituted as per the Schedule and the said Selection has also been approved by the State Government in view of Section 58 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Section 58(1) proviso (iii) of the said Act states that every appointment to be made by the Mayor in Council shall be subject to the prior confirmation of the State Government. The decision of the State Government in this behalf shall be final. Learned counsel for the State also referred to the letter dated 8.4.2011 – Annexure R-2/3 of the Commissioner for relaxation regarding the said appointment, for which, permission was also granted by the State vide its letter dated 24.8.2011-Annexure R-2/4. Hence, this petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

Learned counsel for the other respective respondents would submit that they are the formal parties.

¶29

Heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶30

This petition has been filed by an unsuccessful candidate, who has participated in the entire selection process, however,

¶31

¶32

when he was not placed in the merit list, he preferred the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly raised the issue that a proper Selection Committee has not been constituted as per the Schedule prescribed in the Rules, 2007.

¶33

Having gone through the composition of the Members of the Selection Committee and on perusal of the Merit List - Annexure R-2/1, the same would show that in the Selection Committee, Deputy Commissioner, Executive Engineer and Accounts Officer had participated along with Finance OfficerMr. R Narayana, against whom, it is alleged by the petitioner that he is not holding a substantive post and therefore, he could not have been a Member of the Subject Committee.

¶34

This Court does not find any substantive ground or logic in the above submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The selection was made on merits and even, one of the candidate namely Sachin Mishra, who was placed in the merit list at Sl.No.8 had challenged the Selection Process by filing WPS No.6036/2011, on different grounds and the said writ petition was dismissed on merits vide order dated 22.6.2018. Further, it is quite vivid that a correspondence was made by the Commissioner to the State regarding relaxation and thereafter, the State vide its letter dated 24.8.2011 had granted relaxation to candidates - Balakrushna Verma and Sanjay Mishra in view of Rule 16 of Rules, 2007.

¶35

¶36

For the foregoing, considering all the aspects of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Selection was not biased and the same was made purely on merits. This Court does not find any good ground for entertaining the present writ petition.

¶37

Accordingly, the petition being devoid of any merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/-

¶38

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶39

Judge

¶40

Shyna

Sanjeev Dwivedi v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Dwivedi v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Ganga Bai (Died) through Legal Representative(S) Vs Md. Usman

R. K. Panda Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Lata Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ashish Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Mutu Bharat Vs State of Chhattisgarh