Arun Kumar Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.19 15:19:00 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:41663

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 1100 of 2022

¶7

Arun Kumar Pal S/o Late Shri Jagram Pal, Aged About 43 Years R/o House No. 524, Ward No. 5 Ramkali Bada, Kargil Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Raipur, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Joint Director, Education Division, Bilaspur, Ghodadana School, Taarbahar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner	: Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶15

18.08.2025

¶16

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

¶17

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner, in the interest of justice

¶18

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 07.02.2022 (ANNEXURE P/1) issued by respondent no. 2 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner in the post of Teacher Physical Education E-Cadre, in the respondent department, as per his merit, in the interest of justice.

¶19

10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit

¶20

2

¶21

and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to an advertisement dated 09.03.2019 for the post of Teacher (Physical Education), the petitioner submitted his application form. He would further submit that the documents submitted by the petitioner were duly verified by the selection committee, and thereafter, the petitioner appeared for the written examination. He would also submit that the result of the written examination was declared on 21.11.2019, and he was called for verification of documents on 06.01.2020. He would contend that documents were again verified on 22.01.2022, and thereafter, the petitioner was offered an appointment, which was duly accepted by him. It is further contended that on account of the Covid-19 outbreak, the order of appointment was not issued, but surprisingly, vide order dated 07.02.2022, the selection of the petitioner was canceled on the ground that on the date of the submission of the application, the petitioner did not have the social status certificate issued by the competent authority. He would also contend that the petitioner had submitted a social status certificate issued by the Tahsildar dated 02.05.2003 along with the application form and it is still in existence. He would further argue that a permanent social status certificate of the Other Backward Class(OBC) category has already been issued by the competent authority on 28.02.2022 in favor of the petitioner; therefore, the order Annexure P/1 is bad in law. He would also argue that vide interim order dated 17.02.2022 passed in the instant writ petition, it was directed that any appointment made during the pendency of this writ petition would be subject to the final outcome of this writ petition. He would pray to allow this petition.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. Mr.

¶24

3

¶25

Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate would submit that on the date of the submission of the application form, the petitioner did not have a valid social status certificate issued by the competent authority, and therefore, his candidature has rightly been canceled.

¶26

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

¶27

Admittedly, the petitioner belongs to the Other Backward Class (OBC). Initially, a temporary social status certificate was issued by the Tahsildar in revenue case No. 1907/B 121/02-03 vide order dated 02.05.2003. The certificate specifically states that it was issued to a member of OBC for employment in the public sector, and that certificate is still in existence as it has not been canceled by any superior authority. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the post of Teacher (Physical Education), and he was selected and the offer of appointment was issued by the competent authority on 22.01.2022, which was duly accepted by the petitioner, but the order of appointment has not been issued on account of the COVID-19 outburst. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed vide order dated 07.02.2022 that his selection has been canceled as the petitioner failed to submit the social status certificate issued by the competent authority. It is not the case of the respondents/State that the petitioner does not belong to OBC. Though the permanent social status certificate issued by the competent authority was not submitted by the petitioner along with the application form but he was permitted to participate in the written examination and he was selected. The petitioner has placed the permanent social status certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) dated 28.02.2022 in this petition, which strengthens the contention made by Mr. Sharma that the petitioner belongs to OBC.

¶28

4

¶29

In the matter of Union of India and Others vs. Pritilata Nanda reported in (2010) 11 SCC 674 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once the candidate was allowed to participate in the selection process, it was not open to the respondents to turn around and question the candidature on specious grounds. Relevant para 21 is reproduced herein-below:-

¶30

“21. We also agree with the High Court that once the candidature of the respondent was accepted by the concerned authorities 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.”

¶31

Considering the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order Annexure P/1 dated 07.02.2022 is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed . The respondent authorities are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment forthwith.

¶32

The entire exercise shall be completed by the authority concerned within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall not be entitled to arrears of salary except for the notional benefits.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶35

$iddhant

Arun Kumar Pal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Pal 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

Vijay Panda Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bhagtu Vs (Deleted), Kana, Through Legal Heir

Rameshwar Prasad Bareth Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Piyush Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Shri Ashutosh Structures Pvt. Ltd. (Previous Name Shri Ashutosh Engineering Industries) Vs Central Board of Trustees

Dr. Tohal Sahay Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh