A Writ Petition challenging the appointment order of a selected candidate in a Sub-Engineer recruitment. The petitioner claimed the selected candidate scored lower marks but appeared due to erroneous reservation criteria. The Court dismissed the petition, holding the selection was fair, transparent, and based on merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 3493 of 2013
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
For Petitioner Mr. Vivek Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer
SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board
17/1/2024
2
published for total 23 posts, out of which, 3 posts were to be filled from the Scheduled Caste Category, 7 posts were to be filled up from the Scheduled Tribe Category, 3 posts were to be filled up from the OBC Category and remaining 10 posts were to be filled from the Unreserved Open Category. The petitioner belongs to the OBC category. As per the letter/memo dated 27.2.2013-Ex-P/3, the candidates belonging to the OBC category, who had obtained 78.38% or more (78.38 was the cut off percentage) were called for the interview. With regard to Unreserved Open Category candidates, the said criteria has been fixed as 77% or more and 76.87% or more for the female candidates with regard to the same category and for the Scheduled Caste Open Category candidates and Scheduled Tribe Open Category candidates, lower norms were fixed in comparison to the Unreserved and OBC Category Candidates. The petitioner has scored 78.38% in Diploma in Electrical Engineering Examination, whereas, respondent No.3 has obtained less percentage than the petitioner i.e. 78.18 % in the aforesaid examination. Though as per the criteria which has been fixed for the interview vide the Memo dated 27.2.2023-Annexure P/3, only those candidates who had obtained 78.38% and more with regard to the OBC Open Category were to be called for the interview, but the selected candidate – respondent No.3, inspite of the fact that he scored less percentage than the criteria fixed, was also called for the interview, which was scheduled to be held on 11.3.2013. Consequently, after the interview, when the results were declared, the petitioner was awarded less marks in
3
the interview i.e. 53 marks in aggregate, whereas, respondent No.3 was awarded 54.67 marks in aggregate.
4
4.67 marks in the interview. Thus, the total marks awarded to him was 54.67, whereas, the petitioner obtained 50 marks on the basis of his percentage of marks as per clause 8 of the advertisement, however, he could obtain only 3 marks in his interview and thus, he scored 53 marks in aggregate, which is less than that of respondent No.3 (selected candidate), therefore, respondent No.3 was more meritorious than the petitioner. These all would go to show that the Appointment Order was issued in a proper manner, therefore, the petition bereft of any substance is liable to be dismissed.
5
and make proper selection, the OBC candidates who had scored 77% or more were called in the interview as per the Memo dated 27.2.2023-Annexure P/3 and the selection was made as per the merit of the candidates. The candidates who had scored more marks on merits were duly selected and since the petitioner scored less marks in the overall selection process, he was not selected. He also submits that there was no downgrading in the standard of selection process and it was carried out to ensure the selection of more meritorious candidates. He submits that even the petitioner has not challenged the entire selection process though the interview was scheduled to be held on 11.3.2013 and in fact, he only challenged the appointment order of respondent No.3. He would further submit that the amended Press Release has been issued on 10.1.2014 vide Annexure R/1, which has to be read only as a clarification of the selection process, as there was no compromise on merit.
6
category was 77% or more.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Shyna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there was any violation of merit-based selection norms due to incorrect reservation criteria fixing during the recruitment process?
Whether an interim Press Release amending reservation criteria constituted a violation of rules of procedure allowing post-commencement alteration?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and othersExplained¶26
Sureshkumar Lalitkumar Patel and Others Vs. State of Gujrat and others, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 137
Pradeep Kumar Sao
State Of Chhattisgarh
The Chief Engineer Gramin Yantriki Sewa Vikas Aayukat Office
Madan Lal Nayak
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
