Dismissed

Smt.reena Dhruv v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC8 Sept 2024WPS/6253/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a service dispute regarding a clerical error in gender entry affecting a selection list, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the petitioner's writ petition. The court held that since the error was corrected before the appointment order was issued and the respondent had worked for over ten years, no interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking quashing of the appointment order was dismissed with no cost awarded.

Smt.reena Dhruv Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO

2024:CGHC:35036

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 6253 of 2014

¶7

1 – Smt. Reena Dhruv W/o Shri Swaroop Kumar Dhruv Aged About 36 Years R/o Permanent Address Village Aamjhar Post Sankara, Tehsil Nagari Distt. Dhamtari C.G. At Present Village Ramnagar Post Sankara Tehsil Nagari Distt. Dhamtari C.G. , Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The Director, Department Of Veterinary Directorate Raipur C.G.

¶12

3 - Deputy Director, Department Of Veterinary District Dhamtari C.G.

¶13

4 - Collector Dhamtari, District Dhamtari C.G.

¶14

5 - Smt. Dikeshwari W/o Shri Rohendra Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Charora, Post Mendra Tehsil Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner	: Shri Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 to 4/State	: Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, P.L.
For Respondent No.5	: Ms. Aishley Shrivastava, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Dhiraj
	Kumar Wankhede, Advocate.

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶18

09.09.2024

¶19

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:-

¶20

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly call for the entire record relating to the case of the petitioner.

¶21

¶22

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus and quash the appointment order dated-03.11.2012 in respect of respondent no.5.

¶23

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for issuance of appointment order in pursuance of the earlier selection list in which the name of petitioner was mentioned as selected candidate.

¶24

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits from the date of appointment when respondent no. 5 was appointed in place of petitioner i.e. from 03.11.2012.

¶25

10.5 Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit may also be awarded.”

¶26

Pursuant to an advertisement dated 16.03.2012 issued for various posts including the post of Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar, the petitioner, respondent No.5 and other eligible candidates submitted their applications. A written examination was conducted on 29.09.2012, thereafter, the result was declared and the merit list was published. Thereafter, objections were invited from 15.10.2012 to 23.10.2012. A final selection list was published on 23.10.2012 and the candidates were called for verification of the documents. The petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee for verification of documents on 03.11.2012. There were some mistakes in the application form of respondent No. 5 therefore she moved an application on 03.11.2012 for rectification of the word “male” from “female” as

¶27

¶28

this mistake was inserted in the final merit list due to a mistake of the selection committee. The application of respondent No. 5 was allowed and the word “female” was inserted in place of “male”. The name of respondent No. 5 was placed at serial No. 2 in the merit list whereas the name of the petitioner was in the waiting list.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after the declaration of the result, sufficient time was afforded to the candidates to lodge claims/objections before the Selection Committee. He would further submit that the claims/objections were invited from 15.10.2012 to 23.10.2012. He would argue that initially, the name of the petitioner was at Sr. No.2 in the merit list but an objection was raised after the expiry of the due date on 03.11.2012 by respondent No.5 with regard to her gender, which was accepted and the name of the petitioner was removed from the merit list and she was placed in the waiting list and respondent No. 5 was selected. He would also submit that the objection or any correction in the merit list was not permissible after the expiry of the date, whereas, a list of eligible and not-eligible candidates was published much prior and in that list also against the name of respondent No. 5 in gender “male” was entered. He would further argue that the mistake with regard to gender was within the knowledge of respondent No.5 prior to appearing in the written examination but no steps were taken for rectification of such mistake. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate

¶30

¶31

Bench of this Court in the matter of Ku. Lalita Koshale vs.

¶32

State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., WP(S) No. 5587 of 2012 .

¶33

1. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that respondent No. 5 had submitted her application for the post of Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar showing herself as a female belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category. They would further argue that due to a mistake of the Selection Committee against her name gender “male” was entered and therefore, though she was meritorious to the petitioner, her name was not considered and when this fact came to her knowledge, immediately thereafter, particularly, before issuance of the appointment order, she raised an objection before the Selection Committee and the same was considered as the mistake was committed by the Selection Committee. They would also argue that respondent No. 5 was appointed on 03.11.2012 and after 10 years, it would not be appropriate to remove respondent No. 5 from services. They would state that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶34

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

¶35

1. The petitioner, respondent No. 5 and other eligible candidates applied for the post of Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 belonged to the Scheduled Tribe category. An advertisement was issued on 16.03.2012 and the written examination was conducted on 29.09.2012. The result

¶36

¶37

was declared on 05.10.2012 and thereafter, the objections were invited from the candidates. The last date to raise an objection was 23.10.2012. Till 23.10.2012, no objection was raised by respondent No. 5 to the effect that against her name gender ‘male’ was entered whereas, in the application form she had mentioned her gender ‘female’. On 03.11.2012 before the issuance of the appointment order, she raised an objection for correction of mistake. The Selection Committee examined the matter and found the allegation true therefore, a fresh merit list was prepared and she was placed at Sr. No. 2 in the merit list and later on, she was appointed.

¶38

1. In the matter of Ku. Lalita Koshale (supra) , the candidate could not approach the respondent Selection Committee for verification of documents as she was not communicated properly. One more issue was raised by that candidate in the case that she was meritorious to the selected candidates. The contention raised on behalf of Ku. Lalita Koshale was turned down by this Court on the ground that the information was displayed on the notice board and it was published in the newspaper too. It was further observed that the candidate should have been vigilant instead of leaving everything to the Government and the law helps the vigilant and not the dormant.

¶39

1. It is also not in dispute that in the admission card issued to respondent No. 5, her gender “male” was mentioned even though she participated in the written examination on the basis of that admit card and after the declaration of result and

¶40

¶41

preparation of merit list as also after the expiry of the period to raise an objection before the Selection Committee, she moved an application for correction of gender.

¶42

1. The application form was submitted by the petitioner showing herself as a female belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category. The mistake was committed by the Selection Committee or the employees deployed by the department in scrutiny of the application forms and due to the mistake, respondent No. 5 was shown as a male member. Admittedly, it was a minor mistake which could not be noticed by respondent No. 5 on the admit card but when she did not find her name in the merit list, she checked it properly and found that she was shown as a male candidate in the list of not eligible candidates and therefore, her candidature was not considered. She also came to know that she was meritorious to the petitioner and therefore, she rushed to the Selection Committee and moved an application.

¶43

10) In the matter of Ku. Lalita Koshale (supra) , the petitioner could not approach the Selection Committee for verification of documents whereas in the present case before issuance of the appointment order, respondent No.5 approached the Selection Committee for correction of mistake and it was a mistake committed by the Selection Committee, therefore, the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of the case cited.

¶44

11) In the matter of Buddhi Nath Chaudhary vs. Abahi Kumar and Others , (2001) 3 SCC 328 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that

¶45

¶46

if a candidate has been working on a post for more than 10 years, such a person should not be disturbed on account of some mistake.

¶47

12) Taking into consideration the fact that respondent No. 5 was appointed in the year 2012 on the said post and is still working; there is no interim order in favour of the petitioner; the mistake was brought to the notice of the Selection Committee before the issuance of the appointment order and the same was rectified, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference.

¶48

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

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶51

Nimmi

Smt.reena Dhruv v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.reena Dhruv v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

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

Shree Balaji Iron and Steel Traders Vs Assistant Commissioner of Incom Tax Circle - 1(1)

Rakesh Kumar Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Saloni Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Kshirsagar Sidar

Dwarika Prasad Gupta Vs Gangotri Lehmore

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Gautam Haldhar