State of Chhattisgarh Vs Tosh Kumar Sinha

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:7886-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WA No. 116 of 2025

¶6

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Principal Secretary, Department of Livestock and Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (CG)

¶7

2. Under Secretary Department of Livestock and Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (CG)

¶8

3. The Director Department of Veterinary Science Ground Floor, Block- Iii, Indrawati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, DistrictRaipur (C.G.)

¶9

4. The Deputy Director Veterinary Services District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶10

... Appellant(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1. Tosh Kumar Sinha S/o Shri Hanshram Sinha Aged About 38 Years Working as Assistant Veterinary Field OfÏcer, Posted At- R/o- OfÏce of Joint Director, Bilaspur, Government Colony, HI/1, Bilha, DistrictBilaspur, Chhattisagarh.

¶13

2. Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu University Through- Its Registrar, Anjora, District- Durg (CG)

¶14

3. The Registrar Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu University Anjora, DistrictDurg, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

...Respondent(s)

¶16

Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHAN MORLE MORLE Date: 2025.02.17 10:55:35 +0530

¶17

2

¶18

: For Appellants/State Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate. For Respondent/University : Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate.

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board

¶21

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶22

14.02.2025

¶23

1. Heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the appellants/State. Also heard Mr. Manish Nigam, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Ali Asgar, learned counsel, appearing for the University.

¶24

2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4752 of 2024 ( Tosh Kumar Sinha vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others ), whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner herein was allowed by the learned Single Judge.

¶25

3. It has been pointed out by learned State counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 and learned counsel, appearing for the University that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 74 of 2025 ( State of Chhattisgarh & Others vs. Vandana Tandan & Others ) vide order dated 03.02.2025 observing as follows :

¶26

3

¶27

“10. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner / respondent No. 1 herein has held that from perusal of records it is apparent that admittedly the writ petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Veterinary Field OfÏcer, therefore, the admitted factual matrix is that the next promotional post from the post of Assistant Veterinary Field OfÏcer is to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. The rules governing the field undisputedly is the Chhattisgarh Veterinary (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2011. Under the rules, it shows that 8 per cent posts of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon are to be filled up by 8 Assistant Veterinary Field OfÏcers who have obtained the degree of the B.V.Sc. and AH Course as a departmental candidate. The aforesaid rules clearly makes it clear that unless a candidate has obtained the degree of B.V.Sc and AH Course as a departmental candidate, he/she would never be considered for promotion. Thus, obtaining the degree either as a departmental candidate becomes a necessity for any employee to expect promotion and it is for this reason that the department every year sponsors candidates for the aforesaid degree course. The colleges in the State of Chhattisgarh also have a specific quota of seats under the said course. If the respondents (State and University) do not permit the writ petitioner, seats would be left unfilled and would go to waste. Another fact considered by the learned Single Judge is that the rules of 2011 have not been amended. There also does not seem to be any policy decision of the State Government of stopping facility of granting permission to the employees in the Veterinary Department for pursuing the degree course of B.V.Sc and AH. The orders dated 12.10.2020, 03.12.2020 and 20.06.2024

¶28

4

¶29

do not disclose any specific reason why the said decision was taken by the authorities.

¶30

11. The learned Single Judge further held that from the reply filed by the respondents / appellants herein, it is evidently clear that the respondents themselves have admitted the fact that they have in the past permitted a large number of candidates to pursue the B.V.Sc and AH Courses. Those candidates were also permitted under the same set of rules. The rules governing the field for participating in the NEET Examination which is necessary for getting admission to the B.V.Sc Course is being amended where the upper age limit is being put for participating in the NEET Examination. The moment the said rules with upper age limited for participating in the NEET Examination is introduced, the writ petitioner would lose their chance for getting admission in the B.V.Sc Course for all times to come. This would have a cascading effect on the promotional front and the writ petitioner would lose their chance for a promotional post at a later stage for want of qualification.

¶31

12. Hence, the learned Single Judge relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of National Medical Commission vs. Mothukuru Sriyah Koumudi , 2020 SCC OnLine SC 992 and earlier decision of Delhi High Court in the matter of Sneha Vats. Vs. University of Delhi , reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11199 concluded that the writ petitioner herein also who have been wrongly deprived admission in the B.V.Sc and AH Course in the academic session of 2024-25 be admitted for the B.V.Sc and AH Course in the next academic session of 2025-26. The respondents / appellants herein were directed as an exceptional case

¶32

5

¶33

without treating it as a precedent to ensure that the writ petitioner are granted permission to partake in the B.V.Sc Course in the next academic session treating them to be cleared for the said Course by virtue of the writ petitioner having successfully cleared the NEET Examination in the year 2024. Further respondent No. 4 & 5-University therein was also directed to take all necessary steps in accommodating the writ petitioner in the B.V.Sc and AH Course in the next academic session 2025-26, which was further reviewed in the Review Petition, by which, the learned Single Judge reviewed the order dated 25.11.2024 and modified the said order to the extent that the writ petitioner has wrongly been deprived admission in B.V.Sc and AV Course in session 2024-25 and directing giving admission in academic session 2024-25.

¶34

13. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an intra Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶35

14. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. ”

¶36

They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 74 of 2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms.

¶37

6

¶38

4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 74 of 2025 , this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 74 of 2025 .

¶39

5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 03.02.2025 passed in WA No. 74 of 2025 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others vs. Vandana Tandan & Others) .

¶40

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶41

Brijmohan

State of Chhattisgarh v. Tosh Kumar Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Tosh Kumar Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Xalxo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nazir @ Sonu Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Arti Thombare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Mrs. Babita Bhoi

Ganesh Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh