Dismissed¶¶51

Rajesh Kumar Ogrey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Mar 2025WA/145/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sanitary Inspector recruitment Chhattisgarh; 57 posts; advertisement 16.02.2018; provisional select list 05.10.2018; no waiting list; 55 posts vacant; Chhattisgarh Nagar Palik Nigam (Adhikariyon Aur Karmchariyon ki Niyukti tatha Sewa ke Nibandhan evam Shartein) Niyam 2018; Nagarpalika Sewa (Vetanman evam Bhatta) Niyam 1967; Nagarpalika Karmchari (Bharti tatha Sewa Shartein) Niyam 1968; Rule 12(4) Rules of 2017 waiting list; identical matter WA No. 124 of 2025 Sailesh Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh order dated 19.02.2025; condonation of delay 89 days I.A. No. 01/2025; writ appeal dismissed; Mukul Kumar Tyagi (2020) 4 SCC 86; Vallampati Sathish Babu (2022) 13 SCC 193; CGHC 2025.

What did the court decide?

The application (I.A. No. 01/2025) for condonation of delay of 89 days in filing the appeal is allowed and the delay is condoned.

Rajesh Kumar Ogrey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 89 days in filing the writ appeal should be condoned (I.A. No. 01/2025). +3 more

¶¶31

Court's answer

The application (I.A. No. 01/2025) for condonation of delay of 89 days in filing the appeal is allowed and the delay is condoned.

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

The contention of the appellants regarding preparation of a waiting list is misconceived, because the advertisement was not issued under the Rules of 2017 (which contain the waiting-list provision in Rule 12(4)) but under the Rules of 2018, the Rules of 1967 and the Rules of 1968.

¶¶49

Key takeaways

The facts and issue involved in this appeal are identical to those in WA No. 124 of 2025; the Court deemed it appropriate not to take a view other than the one taken in WA No. 124 of 2025.ratio¶¶50
The present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 19.02.2025 passed in WA No. 124 of 2025.ratio¶¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (WA No. 145 of 2025, High Court of Chhattisgarh, decided 04.03.2025, per Ramesh Sinha, CJ, with Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) against the common order dated 29.08.2024 of the learned Single Judge dismissing WP(S) No. 1844 of 2020 and WP(S) No. 3709 of 2019, by which candidates who had participated in the selection held pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.02.2018 for 57 posts of Sanitary Inspector, but whose names did not appear in the provisional select list (no waiting list having been prepared), sought appointment against 55 posts stated to be lying vacant. Delay of 89 days in filing the appeal condoned (I.A. No. 01/2025). The Court held that the advertisement was issued under the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palik Nigam Niyam, 2018, the Niyam of 1967 and the Niyam of 1968, and not under the Rules of 2017 (Rule 12(4) whereof provides for preparation of a waiting list); the appellants' contention regarding the waiting list was therefore misconceived. Finding the facts and issue identical to WA No. 124 of 2025 (Sailesh Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another), dismissed by the same Bench on 19.02.2025, the Court declined to take a different view and dismissed the appeal in terms of that order.

2025:CGHC:10443-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 145 of 2025

¶5

1 - Rajesh Kumar Ogrey S/o Shri Laxmi Prasad Aged About 37 Years R/o H.No. 118, Ward No. 07, Village Khisora, Post And Police Station Akaltara, District- Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶6

2 - Hemant Kumar Sahu S/o Pyari Lal Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Naya Risda (Bhadrapara), Balko Nagar, Ward No. 36, Near C G N School, Tahsil And District- Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶7

3 - Varsha Jaiswal D/o Shri Sattu Lal Jaiswal Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Mohline Bhata, Katghora, District- Korba Chhattisgarh

¶8

4 - Chandra Kumar Maheshwar S/o Shri Ghasiya Ram Maheshwar Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Putidih, Post Dhabhra, District- JanjgirChampa Chhattisgarh.

¶9

5 - Vinita Thakur W/o Shri Todar Singh Thakur Aged About 34 Years R/o Maashitla Ward, Thakur Para, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶10

6 - Uttara Kumar S/o Shri Gendram Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Katmidih, Post Office Bijradih Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶11

7 - Huleshwar Prasad S/o Shri Bhuwan Lal Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Pachari, Post Office Paoni, Tehsil - Bilaigarh, DistrictBalodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

¶12

8 - Hemant Kumar Verma S/o Shri Horilal Verma Aged About 33 Years R/o A V A/55/ A Sector-7, Bhilai Nagar, Bhilai, District- Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Appellants

¶14

versus

¶15

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Rural Development, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Rakhi, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶16

ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

¶17

Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.03.04 17:56:16 +0530

¶18

2 - Director Directorate of Urban Administration And Rural Development, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶19

3 - Under Secretary Department of Urban Administration And Rural Development, State of Chhattisgarh, Ministry Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya

¶20

¶21

Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Rakhi, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶22

4 - The Secretary Department of Technical Education Manpower, Planning, Science And Technology, State Of Chhattisgarh, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Rakhi, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶23

5 - The Director Directorate of Technical Education Manpower, Planning, Science And Technology, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶24

... Respondent(s)

¶25

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶26

______________________ For Appellant Nos. 1, 3 to 8	___________________________________ : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey and Ms. Maya Chaturvijani, Advocates
For Appellant No. 2	: Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Adv.

¶27

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

¶28

Judgment on Board

¶29

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶30

04.03.2025

¶31

Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey and Ms. Maya Chaturvijani, learned counsel for the appellant Nos. 1 & 3 to 8, Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for appellant No.2 as well as Mr.Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 89 days in filing the instant appeal.

¶32

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 1844 of 2020 (Rajesh Kumar Ogrey & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) , whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

¶36

Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement for 57 posts of Sanitary Inspector was issued by the Directorate, Urban Administration Department, Chhattisgarh on 16.02.2018 pursuant to the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palik Nigam (Adhikariyon Aur Karmchariyon ki Niyukti tatha Sewa ke Nibandhan evam Shartein) Niyam, 2018 (for short, ‘Rules of 2018); Chhattisgarh Nagarpalika Sewa (Vetanman evam Bhatta) Niyam, 1967 (for short, ‘Rules of 1967’); Chhattisgarh Nagarpalika Karmchari (Bharti tatha Sewa Shartein) Niyam, 1968 (for short, ‘Rules of 1968’) and subsequent circulars and instructions issued from time to time. The last date for submission of the online application form was 07.03.2018. The appellants have participated in the written examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board on 17.09.2018. A provisional select list was published by respondent No. 1 on 05.10.2018 and thereafter, Model Code of Conduct for State Assembly elections came into force from 06.10.2018 till 24.12.2018. Chief Election Officer vide order dated 22.11.2018 granted permission to the State to fill up the posts of Sanitary

¶37

¶38

Inspector during the currency of Model Code of Conduct. Respondents called candidates for verification of documents and thereafter, a list of eligible and ineligible candidates was published. Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 08.01.2019 stayed the selection process for the posts of Accountant, Sanitary Inspector & Revenue Inspector. Being aggrieved by the same, WPS No. 2403 of 2019 and batch of petitions were filed before this Court which were disposed of on 03.04.2019 and respondents therein were directed to complete the selection process within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of such order. On 07.05.2019, a decision was taken to issue appointment orders to the selected candidates within 30 days. The department issued appointment orders in favour of only two candidates i.e. Ajay Barik and Durgesh Kumar Sahu on 31.05.2019 & 02.08.2019, respectively. Names of the petitioners were not in the select list and no waiting list was prepared by the department. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed WP(S) No. 1844/2020 and another similarly situated petitioner has filed WP(S) No. 3709 of 2019 claiming appointment to the post of Sanitary Inspector on the ground that out of a total of 57 posts, 55 posts are still lying vacant. Both the writ petitions have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide common order dated 29.08.2024.

¶39

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the said common order passed by the learned Single Judge, against

¶40

¶41

which the petitioner in WP(S) No. 3709 of 2019 has already filed a writ appeal being WA No. 124 of 2025, challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2025.

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that the person who were having the requisite qualification can only be placed into the final selection list and it not open for the respondent authorities to arbitrary place the persons into final selection list according to their whims and fancies as out of 57 candidates only 02 candidates were eligible and they were appointed and rest 55 candidates were declared ineligible for the appointment, the respondent-State should have to proceed for the document verification from the list of eligible candidates who have cleared the written-test and were fully eligible for consideration of their candidature for the process of document verification at least to the tune of 1:2 ratio as the Rules of 2018 and thereon. They further submitted that the respondent-Department had refused to recruit the appellant into the said post inspite of the fact that the merit list was alive and valid. According to the advertisement, the validity of selection list was for the one year which was further extended for the period of 06 months upto 10.04.2020. They also submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Mukul Kumar Tyagi V. State of UP, (2020) 4 SCC 86 . Since the present appellants have the

¶43

¶44

requisite qualification, therefore, they must have been placed in the waiting list at the first place and they can only be replaced by the person having the requisite qualification. They contended that the impugned judgment has made the basis for its reasoning to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vallampati Sathish Babu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2022) 13 SCC 193 to hold that as there was no provision for preparation of waiting list, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim their appointment as matter of right, however, the said judgment is operating and governing the set of facts which are distinguishable from the present set of facts.

¶45

It has been pointed out by learned State counsel that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 124 of 2025 (Sailesh Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another) vide order dated 19.02.2025 and since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 124 of 2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms.

¶46

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record.

¶47

In the Rules of 2017, cited by appellants, there is a provision to prepare a wait list according to Rule 12(4) of the Rules of 2017. But, the advertisement was not issued according to those rules and the same is evident from the advertisement. The advertisement was issued according to the Rules of 2018, Rules of 1967 and the Rules of 1968, therefore, the contention made by

¶48

¶49

the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the preparation of the wait list is misconceived.

¶50

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. 124 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 124 of 2025.

¶51

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 19.02.2025 passed in WA No. 124 of 2025 .

¶52

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

¶53

Chandra

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Common order dated 29.08.2024 of the learned Single Judge dismissing WP(S) No. 1844 of 2020 (and WP(S) No. 3709 of 2019), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/appellants claiming appointment as Sanitary Inspector was dismissed.¶¶35
High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur - learned Single Judge · 29.08.2024
Prior proceeding
Advertisement for 57 posts of Sanitary Inspector issued by the Directorate, Urban Administration Department, Chhattisgarh on 16.02.2018 under the Rules of 2018, Rules of 1967 and Rules of 1968; last date for online applications 07.03.2018.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
Appellants participated in the written examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board on 17.09.2018.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
Provisional select list published by respondent No. 1 on 05.10.2018; Model Code of Conduct in force from 06.10.2018 to 24.12.2018.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
Respondent No. 1 stayed the selection process for the posts of Accountant, Sanitary Inspector & Revenue Inspector by order dated 08.01.2019.¶¶38
Prior proceeding
WPS No. 2403 of 2019 and batch disposed of on 03.04.2019 with direction to respondents to complete the selection process within 90 days.¶¶38
Prior proceeding
Appointment orders issued only in favour of two selected candidates, Ajay Barik (31.05.2019) and Durgesh Kumar Sahu (02.08.2019); petitioners' names were not in the select list and no waiting list was prepared.¶¶38
Prior proceeding
Petitioners filed WP(S) No. 1844/2020 and another similarly situated petitioner filed WP(S) No. 3709 of 2019 claiming appointment; both writ petitions dismissed by common order dated 29.08.2024.¶¶38
Prior proceeding
Petitioner in WP(S) No. 3709 of 2019 filed WA No. 124 of 2025 against the same common order; dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2025.¶¶41
Prior proceeding
I.A. No. 01/2025 seeking condonation of delay of 89 days in filing the present appeal was allowed.¶¶32

Rajesh Kumar Ogrey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Ogrey v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Smt. Sunita Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

N. Dhanraju Vs State of Chhattisgarh

K.s.shrey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Mahendra Kumar Sahu

Mahendra Jagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sankenee Thakur Vs the State of Chhattisgarh