Dismissed

Smt. Sarita Nirala v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Jan 2024WPS/598/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged recruitment select list and appointment order alleging bias due to zero marks awarded in interview despite good written exam. Court dismissed petition, relying on K.H. Siraj, noting interview assesses quality and no objection was raised earlier. Process deemed fair before interview stage.

What did the court decide?

No order on petition. No costs awarded to any party.

Smt. Sarita Nirala Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Education and Admissions | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 598 of 2019

¶5

1. Smt. Sarita Nirala W/o Shri Ajay Nirala Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. C/93subhash Block, SECL Colony, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶6

2. Ku. Mamta D/o Shri Ratan Singh Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Limdih, post Tuman Tahsil Kartala, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

3. Ku. Pushpa Kumari D/o Shri Nand Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bandhwabhata, post Saragbundiya, Tahsil Kartala District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶8

4. Mridula Shriwas W/o Shri Sanjay Shrwas Aged About 35 Years R/o Sharda Vihar Awasiya Colony Qtr no. LIG 69, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶9

5. Smt. Shakuntala Rathore W/o Shri Ramkumar Rathore Aged About 37 Years R/o Rathore Stationary, Hanuman Chowk Gevra Basti Kusmunda District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶10

6. Smt. Ganeshi Mashih W/o Shri Yogesh Mashih Aged About 30 Years R/o Rawanbhata, rajgamar, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶11

7. Manoj Pal Singh S/o Shri Vijay Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Makhanpur, post And Tahsil Pali, District Korba Chahttisgarh.

¶12

8. Rupesh Kumar Kanwar S/o Shri Shivlocharan Singh Kanwar Aged About 29 Years R/o Village And Post Bhaisma, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

9. Smt. Soniya Porte W/o Late Shri Ranjeet Singh Porte Aged About 34 Years R/o SECL Mudapar, Santoshi Kuti, Chowk, Chintamani Sahu Street, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶14

---- Petitioners

¶15

Versus

¶16

1. State Of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Law And Legislative Deparment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantrlaya New Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

2. The District And Session Judge Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

3. Smt. Madhulata Choubey D/o Sanjay Sharma R/o H-45, Sada Colony ,m.P Nagar Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶19

4. Smt. Lalima Tiwari W/o Vedprakash Tiwari R/o House No.197,ward No. 42,hawaipatti, Chowk Rumgadha. Balco, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶20

5. Smt. Rajkumari Rathore W/o Dinesh Kumar Rathore R/o A.B Type Colony Near appu Garden Dhodhipara Ward No.15, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶21

6. Smt. Madhu Chouhan W/o Shri Bajrang Lal Chouhan R/o Village Barpali, Tahsil Kartala District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶22

7. Vijay Kumar Lalra, S/o Laurence Lakra, R/o House No. 423/18/A Purani Basti Kankalin Mandir Road, Dadar Khurd, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶23

8. James Minj S/o Jage Minj R/o Village Kolga, post Office Pasarkhet, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶24

9. Smt. Radha Paikra W/o Mahendra Singh Paikra R/ovillae Makundpur, Post Suhagpur, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶25

¶26

10. Ku. Firbai Kanwar D/o Kunwar Singh R/o Village Jamnipali, post Suhagpur, Tahsil Kartala District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶27

11. Smt. Janki Bai Kanwar W/o Shri Simal Singh Kanwar R/o Ward No. 31, Shivshankar Nagar, Kharmora, Dadarkhurd, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶28

12. Smt. Chandrakala Porte W/o Parmeshwar Pawan Pal Singh R/o I.T.I. Rampur Ward No. 33, House No. 829, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶29

---- Respondents

¶30

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶31

For Petitioners	: Shri SRJ Jaiswal, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1/State For Respondent No.2	: Shri R.M. Solapurkar, G.A. : Shri Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Rohishek Verma and Shri Aman Menon, Advocates.
For Respondents No.3 to 12	: Shri T.K. Jha, Advocate alongwith Shri Aamir Khan, Advocate.

¶32

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶33

Order on Board

¶34

11.01.2024

¶35

1 . Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No.1 - Seema Dixena has been appointed in a different place and therefore, she does not want to press the present petition. He would submit that this petition is being argued for petitioners No. 2 to 10.

¶36

2 . In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the entire recruitment process, select list and order of appointment (Annexure-P/5) on the grounds that the recruitment process was illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶37

3 . The facts of the present case are that an advertisement was issued by respondent No. 2 for various posts including 13 posts of ‘Peon’. The minimum qualification for the post of ‘Peon’ was class 5th pass from the recognized Board. Many persons submitted their applications and after scrutiny, the written examination was conducted and successful candidates were called for interview. The petitioners submitted their applications, they

¶38

¶39

participated in the written examination and after the publication of the result of the written examination, the petitioners were placed at the top. The result of the written examination was published by respondent No. 2 on 09.04.2018 vide Ex.P/3 and thereafter, the candidates were called for the interview and a select list was published. The petitioners and many other persons scored "0" marks in the interview therefore, they could not be finally selected and appointed whereas some of the candidates who scored better marks than the petitioners were taken into consideration for appointment and the appointment orders were issued in favour of the selected candidates who later they joined their services.

¶40

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were awarded “0” marks by respondent No. 2 deliberately though they had answered each and every question posed by the Committee. He would further argue that the entire recruitment process was biased and discriminatory, therefore, the selection process as well as the select list may be quashed.

¶41

5 . On the other hand, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 would argue that along with the petitioners, many other persons were awarded "0" marks in the interview. He would further argue that the Committee constituted for the interview was the best forum for assessing the suitability of the candidates for a particular position. He would also argue that the written examination justifies the candidate’s academic knowledge whereas, the oral test alone brings out or discloses the overall intellectual and personal qualities like alertness, resourcefulness, dependability, capacity for discussion, ability to make decisions and qualities of leadership etc. After taking into consideration the above aspects, the Committee awarded "0" marks and the same cannot be questioned after the issuance of the final selection list and appointment orders. He would further contend that till the petitioners were called for the

¶42

¶43

interview, the recruitment process was good enough for the petitioners but at the moment the petitioners were awarded "0" marks in the interview, the entire recruitment process became biased and discriminatory. He would also contend that the petitioners are blowing hot and cold at the same time and such a stand would not be tenable and thus the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶44

In support thereof, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.H. Siraj vs. High Court of Kerala and Others , reported in (2006) 6 SCC 395 particularly, in paragraphs 54 & 72.

¶45

6 . Learned counsel for the State and counsel appearing for other respondents would support the arguments advanced by Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2.

¶46

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

¶47

8 . It is apparent that an advertisement was issued for various posts including 13 posts of ‘Peon’ by respondent No. 2. Many persons applied; they were called for the written test and thereafter the result was published by respondent No. 2. The petitioners secured good marks in the written test. The petitioners as well as other suitable candidates were called for interview. The interview was conducted by a Committee of four Judicial Officers. The petitioners and many other candidates were awarded "0" marks whereas some of the candidates were awarded better marks than the petitioners. The candidates who stood meritorious were declared as selected, thereafter appointment orders were issued and in pursuance of the appointment orders, they joined the services in the year 2019. Indisputably, the petitioners challenged the recruitment process after

¶48

¶49

participating in it. Before conducting the interview, the entire recruitment process was unbiased whereas immediately after the declaration of the final result, it became biased and discriminatory. Such a stand of the petitioners cannot be accepted.

¶50

9 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.H. Siraj (supra) in paragraphs 54 & 72 held as under:-

¶51

“54. In our opinion, the interview is the best mode of assessing the suitability of a candidate for a particular position. While the written examination will testify the candidates' academic knowledge, the oral test alone can bring out or disclose his overall intellectual and personal qualities like alertness, resourcefulness, dependability, capacity for discussion, ability to take decisions, qualities of leadership etc. which are also essential for a judicial officer.

¶52

72. The appellants/petitioners, in any event, are not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for more reasons than one. They had participated in the written test and in the oral test without raising any objection. They knew well from the High Court's Notification that a minimum marks had to be secured both at the written test and in the oral test. They were also aware of the High Court decision on the judicial side reported in Remany vs. High Court of Kerala, 1996 (2) KLT 439. This case deals with prescription of minimum qualifying marks of 30% for viva voce test. C.S. Rajan, J., in the above judgment, observed as under:

¶53

"On the basis of the aggregate marks in both the tests, the selection has to be made. In I.C.A.R's case, AIR 1984 SC 541 also the relevant rules did not enable the selection Board to prescribe minimum qualifying marks to be obtained by the candidate at the viva voce test. In the Delhi Judicial Service's case also (AIR 1985 SC 1351), the rules did not empower the committee to exclude candidates securing less than 600 marks in the aggregate. Therefore, in all these cases, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that prescription of separate minimum marks for viva voce test is bad in law because under the rules, no minimum qualifying marks were prescribed."

¶54

The High Court also relied on P.K. Ramachandra Iyer's case (supra) and Umesh Chandra's case (Supra).

¶55

10. In the present case, the Committee of four Judicial Officers has evaluated the overall intellectual and personal qualities like alertness, resourcefulness, and dependability of the candidates and thereafter,

¶56

¶57

awarded marks therefore it cannot be faulted after the completion of the entire recruitment process.

¶58

11. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.H. Siraj (supra) and further considering that the candidates were already appointed in the year 2019 itself, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petition is bereft of material facts and substance, therefore, liable to be and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s).

¶59

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶60

Nimmi

Smt. Sarita Nirala v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sarita Nirala v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paras Pandey Vs Nohar Prasad Pandey

K. K. Sharma Vs Abraham Swami

Saguna Bai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chintaram Vs Tularam and Ors.

Gajanand and Ors. Vs Sadanand and Ors.

Suku Pangi Vs State of Chhattisgarh