Sayed Zakir Ali Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No.921 of 2016

¶5

Order reserved on : 23.11.2023

¶6

Order delivered on : 22.02.2024

¶7

Sayed Zakir Ali S/o Sayed Bashir Ali, Aged About 37 Years R/o Behind Masjid, Mahadev Ward, Kanker, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Hari Singh Thakur S/o S. S. Thakur, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Antagarh, Deharipara Antagarh, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Nukesh Kumar, S/o Narottam Lal, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Markatola Fattechand, Tahsil And District Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Kanteshwari Rawat, D/o Asharam, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Bhiragaon, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Jyoti Thakur, W/o Chandrabhan Singh Thakur, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Maynpur, Tahsil Charama, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Rajendra Kumar Sharma, S/o Ravindra Kumar Sharma, Aged About 26 Years R/o Albelapara, Kanker, Rajnand Coloney, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Kanhiya Lal Dehari, S/o Manrakhan Dehari, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bardeori, Tahsil and District Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶14

Mayna Bai Sahu, W/o Birbal Kumar Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kantagaon, Post Parsoda, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶15

---- Petitioners

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Live Stock Development Department, Office Situated at Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

Director, Veterinary Health Services, Indravati Bhavan, Block No.3, Ground Floor, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

Additional Director, Veterinary Health Services, District Uttar

¶20

2

¶21

Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶22

---- Respondents

¶23

For Petitioners Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate For Respondent-State Mr. Suyash Dhar, PL

¶24

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶25

CAV Order

¶26

The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-

¶27

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 10/03/2016 passed by respondent no.3, by which the advertisement dated 31/10/2015 for recruitment to the post of Attendant/Cleaning Attendant Cum Watchman from amongst the physically challenged candidates has been quashed/cancelled.

¶28

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners to the advertised post as all the procedure of recruitment had completed and the petitioners were even called for counseling and mere posting as a procedure was left before cancellation/quashment of the advertisement.

¶29

10.3 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be also kindly be granted.”

¶30

Brief facts of the case are that the advertisement dated 31/10/2015 was issued by the respondent no.3 inviting application for direct recruitment to the post of Attendant/Cleaning Attendant Cum Watchman from amongst the physically challenged candidates who are resident of District Uttar Bastar Kanker, C.G. and total 9 posts were advertised. The petitioners being the handicapped and fulfilling the requisite

¶31

3

¶32

criteria applied for the post advertised in the advertisement by the respondent no3. Subsequently admit cards were issued to all the candidates including petitioners separately for written exam which was conducted on 17/01/2016. The petitioners participated in the written exam and passed the same, thereafter merit list was prepared as per the marks obtained by the candidates in which the petitioners were shortlisted and were called for counseling which was conducted on 29/01/2016. Subsequently on 29/01/2016 counseling was conducted and the petitioners participated therein, thus the entire recruitment process was completed and mere posting was left to be completed, but subsequently, the respondent no.3 issued the impugned order dated 10/3/2016 illegally, malafidely without assigning any reason and without mentioning any order of the higher authorities, whereby the advertisement dated 31/10/2016 has been cancelled. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent no.3 has cancelled the advertisement arbitrary, illegally, malafidely, without assigning any reason and without mentioning any order of the higher authorities. The aforesaid posts were advertised under the special recruitment program of the government for recruitment of physically challenged personnel, hence cancellation of the same without any reason is voilative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and also against the

¶34

4

¶35

scheme of the government. The petitioners participated in the process and went successful in all stages and they were called for counseling as per their merits and counseling was done and mere posting was left to be done and at that stage the recruitment/advertisement has been cancelled, which is illegal, hence the petitioner who were entitle for appointment to the said post have been wrongly deprived. The petitioners moved their representation before the collector kanker, C.G but the same has not been considered. Therefore, the writ petition may kindly be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Parihar and others vs State of Jammu and Kashmir , reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 560.

¶36

Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the petitioners’ counsel and submits that the advertisement dated 31/10/2015 [Annex. P-3] was published for recruitment to the post of Attendant/Cleaning Attendant cum Watchman from amongst the physically challenged candidates for 9 posts and thereafter all the procedures of recruitment was completed and the petitioners were even called for counseling and mere posting as a procedure was left. After scrutiny for appointment of the eligible candidates, the entire details of recruitment for the 9 posts of physically challenged candidates were put before the Collector, Uttar Bastar Kanker, but the Collector found that in the recruitment process the provisions of reservation roaster has not

¶37

5

¶38

been followed whereby the posts for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Class & Women are to be specifically mentioned but the same was not mentioned in the said advertisement dated 31/10/15 [Annex. P-3], therefore, the Collector vide its note-sheet dated 01/02/2016 [ANNEXURE R-1] directed to again issue an advertisement following the due reservation roaster as per the provisions of reservation rules. Therefore, the earlier advertisement dated 31/10/15 (Annex. P-3) has been cancelled. It is further submitted that after cancellation of the earlier advertisement dated 31/10/2015 (Annex. P-3] as per the order dated 10/03/2016 (Annex. P-1] passed by the Collector, Uttar Bastar Kanker, a new advertisement dated 22/03/2016 has been issued wherein proper reservation roaster has been followed providing the benefit of reservation to each and every category and the said advertisement has been duly approved by the Collector and other State officials. The petitioners cannot claim their appointment in the earlier advertisement dated 31/10/2015 [Annex. P-3] though they were called for counseling as the same has been cancelled due to lack of reservation roaster. The petitioners can apply for their candidatures in the fresh advertisement and if they are found entitled then they will be considered for appointment. Thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶39

In response to the return filed by the respondent State, the petitioner has file rejoinder stating therein that while passing the

¶40

6

¶41

impugned order, no such reason has been assigned in the impugned order as been replied by the State, whereas the advertisement was made under the special recruitment programme of the Government, where decision was taken to appoint the physically challenged persons, as such it cannot be said that the reservation roster was not followed.

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶43

It is not disputed in this case that as per advertisement dated 31.10.2005 (Annexure-P/3), the petitioners appeared in the examination and they were called for counseling and by impugned order dated 10.03.2016 (Annexure-P/1), the previous advertisement was cancelled.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner strongly objected on the ground that all the petitioners duly appeared in the selection process and they were called for counselling and after 1 year, the whole process was cancelled so impugned order is liable to be set aside and the respondents be directed to select the candidates as per previous selection process.

¶45

The respondents have filed Annexure-R/1 note sheet of Collector dated 01.02.2016. The operative part of this note sheet is as under:-

¶46

“HkrhZ izfdz;k esa fu;e ds vuq:i SC/ST OBC efgyk etc vkj{k.k dk ykHk ugha fn;k x;k gSA

¶47

7

¶48

iqu% foKkiu tkjh djsaA**

¶49

The advertisement dated 31.10.2015 was issued for total unreserved 9 posts, which is as under:-

¶50

dz	in dk uke	osrueku	fjDr in dh la[;k	fjDr in dk fooj.k vkj{k.k dk izdkj	fofgr ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk
1	2	3	4	5	6
1	ifjpkyd@LoPNrk drkZ ifjpkjd lg&pkSdhnkj	osrueku :i;s 4750&7440@ & xzsM osru 1300@&	09	vukjf{kr O.L-One Leg ,d iSj ¼vfLFk okf/kr½&05 H.H.Hearing Handicaped ¼Jo.k okf/kr½&04	iakpoh ikl

¶51

It is clear from this advertisement that provisions of reservation roster for SC/ST, OBC and Women were not specifically mentioned in this advertisement and as per note sheet (Annexure-R/1), the Collector after considering all provisions cancelled the previous advertisement and published new advertisement (Annexure-R/2), in which as per roster, all posts are specifically mentioned therein, as such there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Even otherwise, Clause 12 of the previous advertisement specifically states that posts can be increased or decreased or even the advertisement can be cancelled, as such this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order impugned, but it is also clear from all proceedings that the all the petitioners participated in the selection process and were even called for interview and vide order dated 30.03.2016, it was also ordered that if any appointment is made, the same shall be subject to the final outcome of this writ petition, as such the

¶52

8

¶53

respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to apply on the posts advertised vide new advertisement (Annexure-R/2) and participate in the selection process afresh and the petitioners shall not be disqualified on the basis of age limit and if any of the petitioner successfully clears the examination, he/she shall be appointed as per the roster system under the new advertisement.

¶54

With the aforesaid direction/observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶55

Sd/Rajani Dubey Judge

¶56

Nirala

Sayed Zakir Ali v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayed Zakir Ali 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

Mithai Lal Awdheliya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Smt. Sukrita Diwakar Vs Bhagwat Shrivas

Dainik Bhaskar, Raipur Vs Yash Oberoi

Dr. Girish Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jakir Shafi Shekh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sachin Prakash Salaskar Vs State of Chhattisgarh