Deepak Kumar Markam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No.898 of 2018

¶5

Deepak Kumar Markam S/o Shri Naresh Kumar Aged About 20 Years Resident Of Kishungarh, Post Kishungarh, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

The Collector, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶10

Rajaram S/o Jugut Ram R/o Village Chuhi, Post Baijalpur, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Petitioner	: Mr. Mateen Siddiqui , Advocate
For State/Respondents No. 1 & 2	: Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No. 3	: None appears though served.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

03.07.2024

¶17

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶18

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash (Annexure P/1) in respect of the petitioner, and direction may be issued for training and appointment from the date of appointment of private respondent with all consequential benefit, in the interest of justice.

¶19

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash (Annexure P/2) in respect of private respondent No.3 in the interest of justice.

¶20

10.3 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts

¶21

2

¶22

and circumstances of the case may also be granted.”

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.11.2016 for Patwari training, the petitioner, respondent No. 3 and other candidates participated in the written examination. The petitioner secured 54.847 marks and his rank was 3 in his category as he belongs to the ST category. He further submitted that marks obtained by respondent No. 3 were lesser than the petitioner. He also submitted that though the petitioner qualified for the examination, he was not permitted to participate in Patwari training on the ground that he was not registered with the employment exchange. It is contended that the issue involved in the present petition has already been decided by the Hon’ble Full Bench in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh V. Roshni Sahu, Writ Appeal No.411 of 2014 and other connected matters.

¶24

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State would oppose. Ms. Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submitted that at the time of submission of the application form, the petitioner did not have live registration with the employment exchange, therefore, his candidature was rejected.

¶25

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

¶26

The issue involved in the present case has already been decided by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Roshni Sahu (supra) where reliance

¶27

3

¶28

was placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India Vs. Pritilata Nanda reported in 2010 (11) SCC 674 wherein in para 21 it was observed thus:-

¶29

“21 . We also agree with the High Court that once the candidature of the respondent was accepted by the authorities concerned and she was allowed to participate in the process of selection i.e., written test and viva voce, it was not open to them to turn around and question her entitlement to be considered for appointment as per her placement in the merit list on the specious ground that her name had not been sponsored by the employment exchange. In our considered view, by denying appointment to the respondent despite her selection and placement in the merit list, the appellants violated her right to equality in the matter of employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution.”

¶30

The Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Roshni Sahu (supra) in para – 9 further held as under:-

¶31

“9. As far as the present cases are concerned, in Writ Appeal No. 411 of 2014 the advertisement was issued on 7.2.2013. Last date for submission of application was 23.2.2013 and at the time when the application was submitted the respondent-applicant was not registered with the Employment Exchange. After she submitted her application, she got herself registered with the Employment Exchange on 25.3.2013. Despite the fact that she was not registered, the appellantState permitted her to appear in the examination. She was successful in the written test. Only after she was found eligible for employment, was an objection raised that since her name was not on the live registration of the Employment Exchange at the time when the application for the post was filed her candidature was rejected.”

¶32

Taking into consideration the fact that the issue is no more res-integra and the

¶33

candidature of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground that he did not

¶34

4

¶35

have live registration with employment exchange, also considering that the decision taken by the respondent authorities appears to be erroneous, therefore, Annexure P/1, whereby the petitioner has been declared ineligible candidate is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby allowed . The authorities are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for Patwari training.

¶36

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

Rekha

Deepak Kumar Markam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar Markam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Shriram Khare and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Lomesh Yadav Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Laxminath Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ku. Divya Nareti Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.

Sona Ram Nag Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.