State of Chhattisgarh Vs Gaurav Swarnkar

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Department of School Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1)

¶11

2 - The Collector District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2)

¶12

3 - Divisional Joint Director Education Department Bilaspur Office At Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3)

¶13

4 - District Education Officer Bilaspur Office Near Old Composit Building, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (Respondent No. 4)

¶14

... Appellants

¶15

versus

¶16

1 - Gaurav Swarnkar S/o Madanlal Swarnkar Aged About 33 Years OccUnemployed, R/o Qr No - 50/g, Risali Sector, Bhilai Nagar, Civic Center, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner)

¶17

2 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Raipur Through Its Chair Person Office at Vyapam Bhavan, North Block, Sector-19, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 5)

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

For Appellants/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Deepali Gupta, Advocate

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶21

Judgment on Board

¶22

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶23

21. 02.2025

¶24

Heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/appellants as well as Ms. Deepali Gupta,

¶25

2

¶26

learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.1 on I.A. No. 01 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 224 days in filing the instant appeal.

¶27

On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶28

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

¶29

By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellants, who were respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the writ petition have challenged the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5506 of 2022 (Gaurav Swarnkar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) , by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein has been allowed in part by the learned Single Judge.

¶30

Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the School Education Department had issued an advertisement on 09.03.2019 for appointment of various posts like lecturer, teachers (E and T-cadre), Assistant Teacher (E and T cadre), teacher English medium, Assistant Teacher Science Laboratory, teacher (Physical Education). The petitioner applied for the post of Teacher (Physical Education) and his name has been included in the select list at serial No.3. The Respondent initiated proceedings of verification of the documents of selected

¶31

3

¶32

candidates; accordingly the petitioner was directed to appear for verification of the document on 10.05.2022. The Joint Director vide its memo dated 10.05.2022 (Annexure-P/4) held petitioner to be ineligible on the count that caste certificate of the petitioner is dated 30.12.2019 which is after the date of declaration of result on 21.11.2019. Hence, the petitioner has filed a writ petition being WPS No. 5506 of 2022 for quashing of Annexure P/4 and for issuance of direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Teacher (Physical Education) with all consequential benefits. The said writ petition was allowed in part by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 09.05.2024 (Annexure-A/1) directing the State to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner, however, it was made clear that petitioner will not be entitled to get any seniority or other service benefit till he joins the services. Being aggrieved by the said order (Annexure-A/1), the State/appellants have filed the instant appeal.

¶33

Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/appellants submitted that impugned order 09.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is perverse, unjust and unreasonable and against the well settled principle of law. He further submitted that in the advertisement dated 09.03.2019 it has clearly mentioned in para-8 sub para-7 that the candidates who are appearing for the aforesaid examination should appear before the competent authority on the date of result declaration or before it along with all the relevant documents

¶34

4

¶35

whereas after declaration of result if any certificate was produced by the candidates will not be taken into consideration. He also submitted that as per the qualification, all other certificates should be given prior to the date of publication of the result and the result was declared on 21.11.2019 whereas caste certificate was issued on 30.12.2019 after date of publication of the result therefore, it cannot be said that the action taken by the State is illegal or unjustified and warrants interference by this Court. Learned State counsel would further submit that the certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Officer has lost its significance and cannot be considered for issuing the appointment order in favour of the petitioner. He also submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have seen the fact that it is a well settled position and has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan, reported in (2011) 17 SCC 141 that a candidate has to comply with the condition / eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut off date.

¶36

On the other hand, Ms. Deepali Gupta, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.1 / writ petitioner opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the learned Single Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly allowed the writ petition in part, in which no interference is called for.

¶37

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.

¶38

5

¶39

From perusal of the impugned order and the materials available on record, it transpires that the petitioner has applied for caste certificate before Sub Divisional Officer Dondilohara on 27.02.2019 which was prior to date of issuance of advertisement as it was issued on 09.03.2019 thereafter the certificate was issued on 30.12.2019. Form perusal of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward Classes (Regulation of Social, Status Certification), Rules, 2013 it is quite vivid that within 30 days from the date of submission of the application, the Sub Divisional Officer should have issued the caste certificate which was not issued till 30.12.2019 though the application was submitted on 27.02.2019, therefore, it cannot be said that there is default on the part of the petitioner. Even Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward Classes (Regulation of Social, Status Certification) Act, 2013 provides that if the caste certificate is found to be forged the candidature of the petitioner can be very well turn down. Since the sufficient safeguard have been framed in the Act and the Rules cast duty upon the authorities to decide the application of the caste certificate within one months from the date of submission, as such the petitioner cannot be held liable for lapses committed by the competent authority in not issuing the caste certificate. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman JEE and others, reported in 2005(9) SCC 779 has held that depending upon the facts of the

¶40

6

¶41

case there can be some relaxation in the matter of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature, and as such, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

¶42

Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s).

¶43

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

¶44

Chandra

State of Chhattisgarh v. Gaurav Swarnkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Gaurav Swarnkar

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

Manoj Yadav @ Bhatkhauha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Lalita Patel Vs Krishnakumar Yadav

Union of India Vs Santosh Gupta

Smriti Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sanstha Office Vs Dinesh Kumar Dubey

Manoj Kumar Dansena Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Saroj Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh