Miss Kanchan Som Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH

¶3

2024:CGHC:35759

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 3897 of 2015

¶7

1 - Miss Kanchan Som D/o Asharam Som, Aged About 27 Years R/o Dr. Abdul Kalam Ward No. 40 Village Hot Kachora Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Miss Sapna Markam D/o. Baldev Markam Aged About 28 Years R/o. Village Karanpur Post Mohlai Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Law, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur P. S. Rakhi Revenue And Civil District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - The President Of Selection Committee, Office Of The District And Session Judge Kondagaon, P. S. Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - The High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General High Court Of Chhattisgarh P. S. Chakarbhata District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate along with Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Advocate For State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer

¶17

For Respondent No.2 & 3: Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

12.09.2024

Heard.

-2-

The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶23

“ 10.1 The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the respondent authorities for its kind perusal.

¶24

10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction to quash the notice for last date for applying the duplicate admit card(Annexure P/3) issued by respondent No.2.

¶25

10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction to the respondent authorities to give opportunity to attain the examination of “kaushal” and take back the petitioner candidature rejection order.

¶26

10.4 Any other relief may kindly be pleased granted as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶27

10.5 Cost of the petition.”

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that an advertisement was issued for the post of Assistant Grade III on 17.06.2015. The petitioners as well as respondent No.2 along with the other eligible candidates submitted their candidature before the office of respondent No.2. He further submitted that the aspirants participated in the written examination which was conducted on 26.07.2015. The candidates who qualified for the written examination were called for skill tests and the admit cards were issued to the respective candidates. He also submitted that a notice was published in the notice board of respondent No. 2 to the effect that the candidates who have qualified for the written examination but could not receive the admit cards by 20.09.2015 may approach the office of respondent No. 2 to obtain a second copy of admit card between 21.09.2015 to 23.09.2015. He further argued that in the year 2015, there were not many facilities of

¶29

3

¶30

internet and the petitioners were not personally informed with regard to the issuance of admit cards, therefore, they could not collect their admit cards from the office of respondent No.2. He also argued that the petitioners approached respondent No.2 on 01.10.2015 and the examination was scheduled on 04.10.2015 but respondent No.2 refused to issue a second copy of admit cards and also refused to permit them to participate in the skill test. He stated that the act of respondent No.2 was contrary to the well-settled principle of law as respondent No.2 ought to have granted an opportunity to participate in the skill test as the petitioners had qualified for the written examination. He lastly stated that respondent No. 2 may be directed to issue an admit card to the petitioners and further to conduct a skill test for the petitioners.

¶31

On the other hand, Mr. Thakur, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 & 3 would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. He submitted that though the petitioners had qualified for the written examination, they could not appear in the skill test. He further submitted that the admit cards were issued to all the candidates who had qualified for the written examination through the post and a notice was published on the notice board of the office of respondent No. 2 to the effect that the candidates who could not receive the admit cards may obtain its second copy from the office of respondent No.2 between 21.09.2015 to 23.09.2015. He also submitted that the petitioners were not vigilant, they failed to notice the notice board of respondent No.2 and also failed to obtain information from the office of respondent No.2. He argued that if a candidate who fails to participate in the examination on account of certain reasons, he cannot be permitted to

¶32

-4-

¶33

participate in the examination subsequently otherwise it will delay the entire recruitment process. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the matter of Gaurav Sangwan Vs. State of Haryana and others, LPA No.285 of 2023 (O&M) , wherein it is held that the selection process has evolved an elimination method at every stage and to ensure that the legitimacy of the selection process is not suborned, every stage of the process has certain requirements that need to be fulfilled in order to reach the next and to ensure that the recruitment is conducted in a time bound manner.

¶34

Mr. Shukla, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the submissions made by Mr. Thakur.

¶35

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

¶36

From a perusal of the documents, it is quite vivid that pursuant to the advertisement issued on 17.06.2015, the petitioners and the other eligible candidates participated in the examination. The written examination was conducted on 26.07.2015 wherein the petitioners also participated. The petitioners were declared qualified in the written examination and they had to appear in the skill test. Respondent No.2 issued admit cards to all the candidates who qualified for their written examination and a public notice was also issued to the effect that the candidates who could not receive their admit cards, may obtain their admit cards from the office of respondent No.2 between 21.09.2015 to 23.09.2015. They did not receive admit cards physically and they also failed to obtain a second copy from the office of respondent No.2

¶37

5

¶38

between 21.09.2015 to 23.09.2015. They visited the office of respondent No. 2 on 01.10.2015 to obtain the admit cards but respondent No. 2 refused to supply admit cards as the period had expired and the skill test was scheduled on 04.10.2015.

¶39

From a perusal of the conduct of the petitioners, it is apparent that they were not vigilant, and they did not visit the office of respondent No.2 between 21.9.2015 to 23.9.2015 to collect a second copy of the admit card. The petitioners approached respondent No. 2 on 01.10.2015 whereas the skill test was scheduled on 04.10.2015, therefore, respondent No. 2 rightly refused to entertain the grievance of the petitioners. Further, the recruitment process was completed in the year 2015 itself but the petitioners have not arrayed the selected candidates as party respondents in the present petition, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference.

¶40

Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No order as to cost(s).

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

¶43

Judge

¶44

Rekha

Miss Kanchan Som v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss Kanchan Som v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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