Smt.savita Mishra Vs The State Of Government Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH

¶3

2024:CGHC:31322

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 4170 of 2013

¶7

Smt.Savita Mishra W/o Shri Shailesh Kumar Mishra Aged About 48 Years R/o Mohan Nagar, Naya Amapara, Near Gajanand Mandir, Durg, Ps Mohan Nagar, Distt Durg, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - The State Of Government Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat, Durg, Distt Durg, Cg

¶12

3 - Smt. Kiran Bala Bhatt O/ Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat, Durg, Distt Durg, Cg

¶13

4 - Upper Collector Appellant Authority Panchayat Shiksha Karmi, Durg, Distt Durg, Cg

¶14

5 - Dr. B.L. Tiwari Commissioner, Raipur Division, Distt Raipur, Cg

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For Petitioner	:	Mr. V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate
For State	:	Mr. Satish Gupta, G.A.
For respondent No.2	:	Mr. Mayank Goyal, Advocate holding the brief of
		Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate
For respondent No.3	:	Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

20.08.2024

Heard.

-2-

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶23

“ 10.1 That the respondent No.2 may be directed to appoint petitioner Shiksha Karmi Grade one, or at least over and above at par with respondent No.2 from day and date she was selected and respondent No.2 was appointed, by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction deemed fit in the interest of justice.

¶24

10.2 That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for relevant records of recruitment of Shiksha Karmis at all level when petitioner’s batch was called for verification of documents and certificates including that of respondent No.2 by issuing yet another writ, order or direction.

¶25

10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may mould the relief as and when required.

¶26

10.4 That the Hon’ble Court may issue any other writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions deemed fit in the interest of justice.”

¶27

The facts of the present case are that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the post of ‘Shiksha Karmi Grade-1’ with Sanskrit subject. The required qualification for the said post was PostGraduation in the subject with B.Ed. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected whereas the private respondents were appointed. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector and the same was dismissed vide order dated 03.08.2012. Against the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 03.08.2012, a revision was preferred before the Commissioner and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2013. Against the aforesaid orders, this petition has been preferred.

¶28

Mr. Tamaskar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was qualified and had the requisite qualifications for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I (Sanskrit). He further submitted that the petitioner was a Post-Graduate candidate in Sanskrit

¶29

3

¶30

Subject with B.Ed. but her claim was rejected only on the ground that she had not passed Post-Graduation in the Second Division. He further contended that such a condition is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶31

On the other hand, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Tamaskar. They submitted that the petitioner passed Post-Graduation (Sanskrit) with Third Division but according to the Circular issued by the Zila Panchayat dated 24.02.2011, the petitioner should have passed the Post-Graduation with Second Division and thus, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.

¶32

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

¶33

From a perusal of the order dated 03.08.2012 passed by the Additional Collector, Durg (C.G.), it is quite vivid that a Circular was issued by the Zila Panchayat dated 24.02.2011, wherein, it was informed that according to the Shiksha Karmi Recruitment Rules published on 30^th of November, 2007, particularly Rules 2(2)(x) and 5 say that a candidate should have passed Post-Graduation with Second Division with B.Ed. It is also observed that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualifications as she had passed Post-Graduation (Sanskrit) with Third Division.

¶34

From a perusal of the mark-sheet etc., it is apparent that the petitioner passed Post-Graduation (Sanskrit) with Third Division and thus according to the Rules, she was not eligible for the said post. The Collector as well as the Commissioner has recorded concurrent findings.

¶35

-4-

¶36

The findings recorded by the authorities do not appear arbitrary or contrary to the Services Rules.

¶37

8. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned orders. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No order as to cost(s).

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

¶40

Judge

¶41

Rekha

Smt.savita Mishra v. The State Of Government Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.savita Mishra v. The State Of Government 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

Arvind Kerketta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mahendra Singh Markam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sel Singh Netam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Lata Bai Sahu Vs Ramlal Sahu

Himanshu Singh Rana Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pila Babu Nagvanshi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.