Sarita Dubey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO

¶3

2024:CGHC:33919

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 6235 of 2014

¶7

1 - Sarita Dubey W/o Shri Indrajeet Dubey Aged About 23 Years R/o Village And Post Rajkheta, Ps Basantpur, Tah. Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Rev. And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The Commissioner Land Record Chhattisgarh, Raipur C.G.

¶12

3 - The Collector Land Record Branch Balrampur, Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Smt. Savita Gupta W/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Gupta D/o Ramadhari Prasad Gupta, R/o Village Namnakala Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja C.G.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner	: Shri D.N. Prajapati, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 to 3/ State	: Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P.L.
For Respondent No.4	: Shri Alok Bakshi, Advocate
	alongwith Ms. Kusum Lal
	Chandani, Advocate.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶17

03.09.2024

¶18

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following

¶19

relief(s):-

¶20

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned orders 17.10.2014 &

¶21

2

¶22

24.10.2014 (Annexure P/1), with all consequential orders/ actions.

¶23

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to select the petitioner for Patwari Training.

¶24

10.3 That any other relief/ order, which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including cost of the petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

¶25

The facts of the present case are that an advertisement was issued for the post of Patwari on 31.01.2014 in District Balrampur-Ramanujganj. In the advertisement, it was provided that the resident of District Balrampur-Ramanujganj may apply for the post in proper format. Clause 5 of the advertisement says that the candidate should be a resident of the District and he/ she should be registered with the Chhattisgarh employment exchange. The petitioner, respondent No.4 and other eligible candidates applied for the post. A written examination was conducted and thereafter, the result was declared. Respondent No.4 was selected whereas, the petitioner could not qualify for the examination. The name of the petitioner was at Sr. No.1 on the waiting list dated 24.10.2014 and the selected candidates were sent for Patwari training. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.4 on the ground that she was a resident of Ambikapur, District Sarguja and in the application form she has clearly mentioned her address of Ambikapur whereas, according to the advertisement the candidate should be a resident of District Balrampur.

¶26

3

¶27

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the application form, respondent No. 4 mentioned her address of Ambikapur, District Sarguja which clearly demonstrates that she was not a resident of District Balrampur. He further submitted that respondent No.4 on 28.08.2014 moved an application before the Collector for cancellation of the earlier domicile certificate of District Sarguja. He also submitted that before the cancellation of the domicile certificate of District Sarguja, another domicile certificate pertaining to District Balrampur was obtained by respondent No. 4. He contended that respondent No.4 had played fraud to grab the job. He argued that the appointment of respondent No. 4 may be canceled and a direction may be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Patwari.

¶28

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 respondent No. 4 was a permanent resident of District Sarguja and District BalrampurRamanujganj was part of District Sarguja prior to 2012. They further submitted that respondent No. 4 had a domicile certificate of Sarguja which was issued prior to 2012 and after the creation of District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, a fresh application was moved for issuance of a domicile certificate and the same was issued in her favour. They also submitted that when respondent No.4 was selected for the post of Patwari, she moved an application on 28.08.2014 before the Collector, Sarguja for cancellation of her earlier domicile certificate of District Sarguja

¶29

4

¶30

and the same was allowed. They stated that on the date of her selection, she was a resident of District Balrampur-Ramanujganj and the domicile certificate issued in her favour was not cancelled by any superior authority. It is further argued that according to Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India, no citizen can be discriminated against on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent or place of birth. It is also argued that respondent No.4 was selected in the year 2014 and she has been working on the post of Patwari since then, therefore, after 10 years it would create hardship for respondent No.4 if her appointment is cancelled. They also stated that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶31

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

¶32

1. Respondent No.4 was appointed to the post of Patwari pursuant to an advertisement dated 31.01.2014. According to the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the candidate should be a resident of District Balrampur-Ramanujganj and he/ she should be registered with the employment exchange. This provision was inserted in the advertisement to provide employment to unemployed persons in the District. Respondent No.4 was a resident of District Sarguja. District Balrampur – Ramanujganj was part of District Sarguja prior to 2012. A domicile certificate was issued in favour of respondent No.4 prior to 2012 and after the formation of District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, she applied for a domicile certificate of District Balrampur-Ramanujganj and the

¶33

5

¶34

same was issued by the Competent Authority. Respondent No.4 applied for the post of Patwari along with the domicile certificate of Balrampur-Ramanujganj and she also moved an application on 28.08.2014 for cancellation of her earlier domicile certificate of District Sarguja and the same was accepted by the Competent Authority.

¶35

1. The contention raised by Shri D.N. Prajapati that respondent No.4 was not a resident of District Balrampur-Ramanujganj appears to be misplaced as the domicile certificate issued in favour of respondent No.4 was in existence when she was selected/ appointed and the same was not cancelled by any superior authorities. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.4 only on the ground of her place of residence and there is no other ground.

¶36

1. As there was a domicile certificate of District BalrampurRamanujganj in favour of respondent No. 4 and the same was in force when she applied for the post of Patwari; the certificate was not cancelled by any of the superior authorities; and, respondent No.4 is working on the said post since last 10 years, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference.

¶37

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

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶40

Nimmi

Sarita Dubey v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarita Dubey 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

Bhagi Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramprasad Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. And Anr.

Ku. Sangeeta Sahu Vs State Govt. Of C.g. and Ors.

Saroj Kumar Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ram Prakash Choudhary Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Sej Kumar Sahu And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.