Premshankar Brahmbhatta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO

¶3

2024:CGHC:32449

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 3443 of 2014

¶7

1 - Premshankar Brahmbhatta S/o Shri Pardeshiram Brahmbhatta Aged About 31 Years R/o Behind Street Of Parmeshvari Devangan School Ward No. 4, Gaya Nagar Post Office And Police Station Durg. Distt. Durg. C.G., Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health Services, Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Office Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The Commissioner, Department Of Health Services Indravati Bhawan Post Office Mantralaya P.S. Rakhi Naya Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G.

¶12

3 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Balod P.S. Tahsil And Distt. Balod C.G.

¶13

4 - Shri Deepak Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Chova Ram Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Q No. 225/A Ward No. 12 Durg Road Ganjpara P.S. And P.O. Balod, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

5 - Shri Purushottam Singh Vashistha S/o Shri Dariyan Singh Vashishtha Aged About 28 Years R/o Near Sagar Hosptial Ganjpara P.S. And P.O. Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶15

6 - Shri Dinesh Singh S/o Shri Ram Prasad Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Behind To Karmchari Nagar Sikolabasti Durg. P.S And P.O Durg. District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶16

7 - Shri Bharat Bhushan Tiwari S/o Shri Chandra Shekhar Tiwari Aged About 27 Years R/o Hospital Colony Balod P.S. And Po Balod Distt. Balod C.G. , District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶17

8 - Shri Yugal Kishor Sahu S/o Shri Chenlal Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Behind To New Bus Stand Aamapara Balod, P.S. And P.O. Balod Distt. Balod C.G. , District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶18

2

¶19

9 - Shri Shantanu Vishnava S/o Shri Dev Narayan Vishnava Chova Aged About 24 Years R/o Shikshak Colony Ward No. 11, Dongargaon P.S. And Po Dongargaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶20

10 - Shri Shiv Dayal S/o Shri Lokesh Das Aged About 24 Years R/o Kanhapuri Ward No. 28 P.O. Kanhapuri P.S. Rajandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

For Petitioner	: Shri K.N. Nande, Advocate.
For Respondents/State	: Shri Satish Gupta, G.A.
For Respondents No.4 to 10	: Shri Ishan Sharma, Advocate holding
	the brief of Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate.

¶23

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶24

27.08.2024

¶25

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following

¶26

relief(s):-

¶27

“ 10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the select list dated 12.12.2013 issued by the respondent being illegal and arbitrary, in the interest of justice.

¶28

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding upon respondent no. 2 and 3 and direct to them for giving the reservation benefit to the petitioner in freedom fighter category for which he deserves.

¶29

10.3 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to inquire the matter regarding the selection of only already working employees in the same department and same place by any appropriate agency, in the interest of justice.

¶30

3

¶31

10.4 That, any other order or orders or Direction or Relief though just and fit in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

¶32

The facts of the present case are that an advertisement was issued for 23 posts of Assistant Grade-III on 19.07.2023. Out of 23 posts, 10 posts for the Unreserved category, 2 posts for the Scheduled Castes, 7 posts for the Scheduled Tribes and 3 posts for the Other Backward Class. The petitioner submitted his application as a family member of the freedom fighter for the said post. In between, an amended advertisement was issued on 03.08.2013 for the post of Sweeper and Cook and in a note, it was stated that the benefit of reservation would be extended to physically handicapped, Ex-Army Personnel and freedomfighters as per rules and it would be applicable for the advertisement dated 19/24.07.2013. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process but for the first time on 23.12.2013, raised an objection to the effect that no post was reserved for members of freedom fighters. The merit list was published on 13.09.2013 and the shortlisted candidates were called for a skill test, thereafter, the final select list was published on 12.12.2013 by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶33

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that according to the Rules, the authority concerned ought to have reserved the post for family members of the freedom fighter. He referred to a letter dated 10.09.2003 wherein the Additional Secretary, ChiefMinister, Chief-Minister Secretariat, Chhattisgarh Mantralaya,

¶34

4

¶35

Raipur were directed to reserve appropriate posts for members of freedom fighters. He further submitted that the other Districts except Balod reserved the post for the family members of the freedom fighter. It is argued that a representation was made before the appropriate authority and it was informed that the post according to Rules would be reserved for the family members of the freedom fighter. He further argued that in the amended advertisement dated 03.08.2013, this issue was clarified by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Balod by adding a note wherein it was stated that the benefit of reservation would be extended to family members of the freedom fighter even in the advertisement issued on 19.07.2013. He also argued that there was no reason or occasion for respondent No. 2 not to reserve one post for family members of the freedom-fighters. It is contended that by interim order, one post of Assistant Grade-III has been kept vacant and a suitable direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner. He further referred to a notification issued on 30.03.2012 pertaining to the Chhattisgarh Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2012 wherein preference has been given to family members of freedom fighters.

¶36

1. On the other hand, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They submitted that the petitioner is a family member of a freedom fighter but no post of Assistant Grade-III was reserved for family members of freedom fighters in the advertisement issued on 19.07.2013. They further submitted that

¶37

5

¶38

the amended advertisement was issued with regard to Sweeper and Cook and nowhere it was stated that the post would be reserved for family members of freedom fighters in the advertisement dated 19.07.2013 for the post of Assistant GradeIII. It is also submitted that the petitioner knowing very well that no post is reserved for the family members of freedom fighters, participated in the recruitment process and when he could not qualify the examination, filed this petition after the declaration of the result. They further contended that vide letter dated 31.12.2013, the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Balod was informed that in notification issued on 31st December, 2009, there is no provision to extend benefit to family members of freedom-fighter and this order has not been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. It is also contended that the document (Annexure-P/9) was issued by the office of the Mission Director on 27.02.2013 pertaining to contract employment under the National Rural Health Mission, therefore, the petitioner cannot take benefit of that document. They stated that the notification was issued by the State Government on 30.03.2012 for admission to the educational institution and the circular does not apply to recruitment. They also stated that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶39

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

¶40

1. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a family member of a freedom fighter and he submitted his application for the post of

¶41

6

¶42

Assistant Grade-III from that category. The advertisement dated 19.07.2013 shows that out of 23 posts, no post was reserved for the family members of a freedom-fighter. The petitioner submitted the application and participated in the recruitment process and in between, he made a representation before the respondent authorities to reserve a post for the family members of freedom fighters. The petitioner participated in the written examination and thereafter, the merit list of the written examination was prepared and the suitable candidates were called for the skill test. The petitioner was found eligible for the skill test as a member of the Unreserved category. The petitioner secured 87% marks in the skill test whereas, the other candidates belonging to the Unreserved category had secured higher marks than the petitioner. A select list was published on 12.12.2013 and the petitioner was not selected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this petition on 16.06.2014 after six months. The petitioner has not placed on record the rules extending the benefit of reservation to family members of freedom-fighter. For the sake of argument, if there was a rule to keep the post reserved for family members of freedom-fighters, the petitioner failed to challenge the advertisement dated 19.07.2013 and participated in the recruitment process. Even before the completion of the recruitment process, the petitioner did not file a petition claiming therein reservation for the family members of freedom fighters and after the declaration of the final select list, he filed this petition. Admittedly, the petitioner challenged the

¶43

7

¶44

recruitment process after participating in the entire recruitment process.

¶45

1. Notification dated 30.03.2012 pertaining to admission in the educational institution does not extend any benefit in favour of the petitioner. Vide letter dated 10.09.2003, the Additional Secretary, Chief-Minister Secretariat, Chhattisgarh Mantralaya, Raipur were directed to reserve appropriate posts for members of freedom-fighters but when no post was reserved for family members of freedom-fighters, the petitioner ought to have challenged the action of the State immediately after issuance of advertisement.

¶46

1. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference.

¶47

1. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s).

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶50

Nimmi

Premshankar Brahmbhatta v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premshankar Brahmbhatta 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

Smt. Geeta Meshram Vs Advocate General

Janpad Panchayat Lakhanpur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dhirendra Vishwakarma Vs Rasheed Hasmi

Bishnu Pada Ghosh Vs Bank Of Maharashtra And Ors.

Smt. Mini Bai Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dr. Vandana Gour Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.