Dismissed¶41

Devcharan Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh andors

Chhattisgarh HC19 Jun 2024WPS/895/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Devcharan Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 895 of 2014, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, decided 20.06.2024 by Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey – challenge to appointment of respondent No. 4 (Rajendra Kumar Sahu) as Driver by Nagar Panchayat Tundra – unsuccessful candidate who took part in recruitment without protest cannot later dispute interview/evaluation marks – Tajvir Singh Sodhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 253 (para 16.2) relied on – petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Relying on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra), a candidate who participates in the entire recruitment/interview process without raising any objection cannot subsequently challenge the evaluation merely because his personal assessment of his performance was higher than the marks awarded. ¶40

Devcharan Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh andors — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 895 of 2014

¶5

Devcharan Sahu S/o Shri Kholbahara Prasad Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Gram Tundra, Tah. Kasdol P.S. Bilaigarh Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, C.G., Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Social Welfare, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Distt. Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh

¶9

2. The Director, Department Of Panchayat And Social Welfare, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Distt. Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3. The Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Tundra, Distt. Balodabazar, C.G., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4. Rajendra Kumar Sahu S/o Purruram Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Gram Thakurdiya, P.S. And Tah. Navagarh, Distt. Janjgir Champa C.G., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner	: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondents/ State	: Shri Satish Gupta, G.A.
For Other Respondent	: None though served.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶15

20.06.2024

¶16

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

¶17

“i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned appointment order dated 12/02/14 Annexure P/1.

¶18

ii. The petitioner above named most humbly prays to this Hon'ble Court to call for entire records pertaining to the direct recruitment of the post of driver by the Nagar

¶19

¶20

Panchayat Tundra.

¶21

iii. This, Hon'ble Court may pleased to direct to the respondents for submitting the all video records pertaining to the physical proficiency test and interview.

¶22

iv. This Hon'ble Court may please to direct to the respondents to keep vacant the one post for the petitioner.

¶23

v. This Hon'ble Court may please to direct the respondents to stay the further proceedings of appointment.

¶24

vi. Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶25

The facts of the present case are that on 12.02.2013 an advertisement was issued by Nagar Panchayat, Tundra, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara for one post of Driver and 5 posts of Sweeper. The minimum qualification required for the post of driver was Class-VIII pass and a Light Motor Vehicle licence. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 participated in the post of driver. The Selection Committee was constituted and the Committee decided to evaluate the merit of the candidates in the following manner:-

¶26

For interview - 10 marks 2. For educational qualifications - 10 marks 3. For experience - 05 marks

¶27

For educational qualification, in the following manner the marks were to be awarded:-

¶28

For 12^th class - 01 mark

¶29

¶30

For Graduation - 02 marks 3. PG/LSGD/LLB/Accounts Training - 03 marks

¶31

Similarly, the manner to award 5 marks for experience was

¶32

decided as follows:-

¶33

1.	For 2 years	- 01 mark
2.	For 4 years	- 02 marks
3.	For 6 years	- 03 marks
4.	For 8 years	- 04 marks
5.	For 10 years	- 05 marks

¶34

1. Respondent No. 4 – Rajendra Kumar Sahu secured 8.77 marks whereas the petitioner secured 7.18 marks. The petitioner was awarded 3.67 marks and respondent No. 4 was awarded 4.33 marks in the interview and for educational qualification, the petitioner was awarded 3.01 marks and respondent No. 4 was awarded 4.44 marks, therefore, the appointment order was issued in favour of respondent No. 4.

¶35

1. Admittedly, the petitioner without raising any objection participated in the entire recruitment process and when he could not become successful, he challenged the order of appointment of respondent No. 4.

¶36

1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Ors. vs. The State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors.,

¶37

¶38

reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 253 while dealing with a similar issue in paragraph 16.2 held as under:

¶39

“16.2. The criteria for evaluation of a candidate’s performance in an interview may be diverse and some of it may be subjective. However, having submitted to the interview process with no demur or protest, the same cannot be challenged subsequently simply because the candidate’s personal evaluation of his performance was higher than the marks awarded by the panel.”

¶40

1. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra) and also considering the fact that without raising any objection the petitioner participated in the entire recruitment process, respondent No. 4 was found meritorious to the petitioner and being unsuccessful, he filed this petition, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference.

¶41

1. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed .No costs.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶44

Nimmi

Devcharan Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh andors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devcharan Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh andors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Laxmi Manikpuri Vs Mohandas Manikpuri

Harivallabh Agrawal Vs Assistant Engineer

Smt. Nirmala Sahu Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ku. Laxmi Rani Rai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Shailendra Nirmalkar And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.