Vivek Singh Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

¶1

Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2025.04.15 17:41:34 +0530

¶2

2025:CGHC:16566

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

W.P.(S) No. 1285 of 2013

¶6

Vivek Singh Thakur, S/o Prahlad Singh Thakur, aged about 37 Years, R/o House No. 461, Behind Mata Garage, Beside Vishwa Hindu Parisad Office Kali Nagar, Pandari, Post, Raipur, P.S. Civil Line, Raipur, Revenue Dist. Raipur, Dist. Raipur C.G.,

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., S/o Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur C.G.

¶10

Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Through Registrar, Krishak Nagar, Raipur, Dist. Raipur C.G.,

¶11

The Vice Chancellor, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya,administration Building, Krishak Nagar, Raipur, Dist. Raipur C.G.

¶12

Narendra Agrawal, S/o Kriparam Agrawal, aged about 40 Years, R/o Precision Farming Development Center Pfdc Department of Horticulture, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, Dist. Raipur C.G.

¶13

--- Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Dr. Nirmal Shukla, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Nitikesh Gupta and Shri Dinesh Kumar Bole, Advocates. For Respondent No.1 : Ms. M. Asha, P.L. . For Respondent No.2 & 3 : Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent No.4 : Shri Amiya Bhusan, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

08/04/2025

¶18

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief :

¶19

-2-

¶20

10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the concerned petitioner's case from the possessions Respondents for its kind perusal.

¶21

10.2 That, it is respectfully, praved that this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction for quashing the appointment order dated 05.09.12 which is annexed as ANNEXURE P-6.

¶22

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to give direction to the Respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of subject matter specialist (KVKs) in subject of soil and water engineering under the unreserved category.

¶23

10.4 That the cost of the petition may also be given to the petitioner by the respondent authorities.

¶24

10.5 Any other relief may also be granted to the Petitioner which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit in facts and circumstances of the case.

¶25

Facts :- An advertisement for the post of specialist in various subjects including soil and water engineering, in Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Krishak Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) was issued vide Advertising No Estt.-1/Advt./ 139 II/ 2012/6905, Raipur dated 15.02.2012. The petitioner submitted the form with the entire certificates as required in the advertisement for unreserved category. The respondent no. 2 issued a list of eligible candidate as per which the respondent no. 4 and the petitioner were found placed in the list at serial no. 1 and serial no. 9 respectively. Total marks obtained in personal interview and academic score card for subject matter specialist (KVK) soil and water engineering was issued in which the respondent no. 4 and the petitioner were found placed in the list in unreserved category. The state of Chhattisgarh General Administration Department issued a circular on 30.01.2012 as per which the persons who are serving in any department, as a contractual appointment will be entitled to get age relaxation for a period up to their contractual service. It is further mentioned that the maximum age limit will be 38 years of the age of the person. The respondent no. 4 is aged of 39 years 9 months 15 days at the time

¶26

-3-

¶27

of submitting application for the subject matter specialist soil and water engineering. The appointment of the respondent no. 4 is contrary to the age relaxation circular of the State Government. The petitioner is entitled to be selected for the said post in place of the respondent no. 4 as he has been appointed by giving wrong as relaxation. Thus the petitioner has been deprived from the selection on the post of subject matter specialist (KVKs) in subject of soil and water engineering under the unreserved category due to arbitrary and unjust action and wrongly as relaxation of the respondent authorities. Hence, this petition.

¶28

Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits the impugned order of appointment of respondent No. 4 (Annexure - P/6) is bad in law because on the date of advertisement, the respondent No.6 was over age. He further submits that the age on appointment on the post of subject matter specialist (KVK) soil and water engineering was 35 years and the petitioner was aged about 39 and 8 months. Therefore, the petitioner was not eligible for subject matter specialist (KVK) soil and water engineering, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the case of the petitioner be consider for appointment in place of respondent No.4.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 were working with the respondent / university and there was no age bar for the in house candidates. Therefore, the contention of the senior counsel is miss-placed and cannot be accepted.

¶30

However, they submit that the appointment of the respondent No.4 on subject matter specialist (KVK) soil and water engineering was made in the year, 2012 and during pendency of this writ petition, the respondent No.4 was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor (Soil & Water Engineering) vide order dated 08/08/2014 filed along-with the return of respondent No.4 as Annexure R/4-1. Therefore, they submit that the writ petition has become infructuous as respondent No.4 is no more working in the post in-dispute.

¶31

-4-

¶32

In rejoinder, learned Senior Advocate submits that if the petitioner has been appointed on the post of the Subject Matter Specialist (KVK) Soil and Water Engineering, naturally the petitioner was also in select list and the person following next to the respondent No.4 has not joined the service. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner ought to have been consider by the respondent No. 2 & 3.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the appended record.

¶34

The challenge is the appointment order of respondent No.4 (Annexure P/6) by which he was appointed on the post of Subject Matter Specialist (KVK) Soil and Water Engineering. The return of the respondent No.4 clearly indicates that during pendency of this writ petition he was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor (KVK) Soil and Water Engineering and as such as per submission of Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate he is not presently working on the post indispute. The select list also indicates that after the respondent No.4 one more candidates were placed above the petitioner. As per submission of Dr. Shukla, Senior Advocate, the second candidate has not joined, therefore his case would be consider. Therefore, without expressing anything on merit, this Court is of the view that for the relief No. 10.3, the petitioner may make representation to the respondent No.2 and 3 within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order who in turn decide the same in accordance with law after hearing the stakeholders within a further period of 120 days from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶35

With above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶36

Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶37

Ashish

Vivek Singh Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Singh Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ku. Bhigeshwary Bandhaw Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Raju Dhruw Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bhushan Lal Banchhor Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Arun Kumar Pradhan Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Trilok Jaiswal and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mithlesh Rao Alias Krishna Rao Vs State of Chhattisgarh