Dismissed

Anand Kumar Singh and Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC10 Sept 2024WPS/6425/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a CGPSC advertisement reserving 155 of 268 Assistant Block Education Officer posts, exceeding 50%, contrary to a State notification extending reservation to 58%. The court found no case for interference, noting the notification predated the advertisement and the petition suffered from delay and laches, and dismissed it.

What the court decided

AI extract

Anand Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs State Of… — Education and Admissions | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:35606

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 6425 of 2014

¶6

1. Anand Kumar Singh And Anr. S/o Ashok Kumar Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o Korea Collery 64 Dafai, Near Hanuman Temple, Post And Police Station Korea Collery, Chirmiri, Civil And Rev. Distt. Korea C.G., Chhattisgarh

¶7

2. Brij Narayan Mishra S/o Aditya Narayan Aged About 38 Years R/o Bhattipara Baikunthpur, Ps Baikunthpur, Civil And Rev. Distt. Korea C.G. , District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

versus

¶10

1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. Through Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. , Chhattisgarh

¶11

2. Director S/o Public Instruction C.G. Govt. Pension Bada Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G.

¶12

3. Public Service Commission S/o C.G. Raipur, Through Its Secretary, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Petitioners	:	None, even in third round.
For State	:	Ms. Saumya Sharma, P. L.
For Respondent	:	Mr. Pratik Vishwakar, Advocate on behalf of
No. 3		Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶16

Judgment On Board

¶17

11/09/2024

¶18

1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following

¶19

relief(s):-

¶20

10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ for quashing/set-aside the advertisement dated 27.11.2013 (Annexure P/1) published by the respondent no. 3. 10.2 Any other relief, which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.

¶21

2 / 3

¶22

2. Facts of the present case are that an advertisement was issued by CGPSC for the recruitment of 268 posts of Assistant Block Education Officer on 27.11.2013. Out of 268 posts of Assistant Block Education Officers, 113 posts were reserved for unreserved category whereas 155 posts were reserved for SC, ST & OBC. Earlier, a writ petition WP(S) No. 5722/2014 was filed by one Sobh Nath Singh whereby the rule which provided for 100% direct recruitment on the post of Assistant Block Education Officer was challenged. That petition was disposed of in the light of the order passed in WP(S) No. 5610/2014.

¶23

3. In the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned advertisement dated 27.11.2013 on the ground that the said advertisement provides more than 50% reservation which is contrary to the constitutional mandate. It is pleaded that out of a total of 268 posts, only 113 posts were kept for UR category candidates and 155 posts were reserved for SC, ST and OBC candidates.

¶24

4. Learned counsel for the respective respondents would oppose the petition. They would submit that the advertisement was issued on 27.11.2013 and after completion of the said recruitment process, when the petitioners could not qualify for the examination, they filed this petition on 04.12.2014 without explaining the reason for the delay. They would argue that a decision was taken by the State Government to extend the benefit of reservation up to 58 % by notification dated 16.03.2012. They would contend that on the date of issuance of the advertisement, the notification dated 16.03.2012 was in existence and by virtue of the said notification, 155 posts were reserved for SC, ST & OBC category candidates. They prayed that this petition is

¶25

3 / 3

¶26

misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

¶27

5. Heard learned counsel for the respondents.

¶28

6. Evidently, the advertisement was issued on 27.11.2013 for 268 posts of Assistant Block Education Officer on 27.11.2013, out of which 113 posts were reserved for unreserved category whereas 155 posts were reserved for SC, ST & OBC, thus, the reservation was more than 50%. The Notification (Annexure R/1) issued by the State Government would show that an amendment was inserted in the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2011 by means of which reservation was extended up to 58%. As per the said

¶29

amendment, the distribution of reservations was as follows:-

¶30

SC	ST	OBC
12%	32%	14%

¶31

A total of 155 posts out of 268 posts were reserved for SC, ST & OBC category candidates by virtue of the notification dated 16.03.2012. The petitioners participated in the recruitment process and after the lapse of one year, they challenged the advertisement, therefore, this petition suffers from delay and laches also.

¶32

7. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference.

¶33

8. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).

¶34

Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE

¶35

Ajinkya

Anand Kumar Singh and Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Anand Kumar Singh and Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.L. Sandhilya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amar Singh Bisen Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dashrath Lal Kanwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Durjan Vs Balsingh

Gouram Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Das Manikpuri Vs Ramadhar