Bindulata Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 174 of 2022

¶5

Bindulata Chandrakar, W/o Faguram Chandrakar Aged About 52 Years R/o 203, Dabaripara, Village Karra, P.O. Darrighat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495001.

¶6

--- Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Women And Child Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, 492101. 2 - Director Women And Child Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, 492101.

¶9

3 - Chairman Chhattisgarh Professional Board of Examination, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 492001.

¶10

4 - Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Professional Board of Examination, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 492001.

¶11

--- Respondent(s)

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Nitesh Tiwari, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Advocate

¶13

For State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer

¶14

for Respondents No.3 & 4 : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

26.08.2025

¶18

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶19

-2-

¶20

“10.1. The petitioner may please be given additional marks for accreditation and experience received during her service tenure.

¶21

10.2. Any other relief as my lord may deem fit in the interest of justice. ”

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the

¶23

notification issued on 02.12.2021 by respondent No. 2 for recruitment to the post of Supervisor under the Women and Child Welfare Department through competitive examination, the petitioner, who is working on the post of Anganwadi Worker, submitted her application form. He would further submit that at that time, her age was 50 years, whereas one of the conditions of the advertisement prescribed the permissible age limit between 18 to 40 years. It was further provided that candidates belonging to the OBC/SC/ST categories would be entitled to a relaxation of age up to 5 years. He would contend that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process and was otherwise selected, but her candidature was not considered on the ground of age. It is further submitted that the petitioner was also denied additional marks towards accreditation and experience; thus, he prays for allowing this petition.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would

¶25

oppose and submit that on the date of submission of the application form, the petitioner was already 50 years old and, thus, she was not eligible to participate in the recruitment process. It is further contended that since the petitioner had crossed the age of 45 years, she was not entitled to any relaxation, nor could she

¶26

-3-

¶27

claim any additional marks for her experience certificate. They would place reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Smt. Padmavati Sahu & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. and other connected matters [WPS No.803 of 2022, decided on 09.05.2024],

¶28

wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has already dealt with a similar issue.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the

¶30

file.

¶31

1. In the matter of Smt. Padmavati Sahu (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench

¶32

while dealing with a similar issue, in paras 53-54 held as under:-

¶33

“53. Another grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the conducting of the recruitment process after a long gap of time because of which many of the petitioners had crossed the age of 45 years and thus, missed the chance of participating in the recruitment process. If the recruitment process is not initiated every year, that cannot be said to be arbitrary as there can be number of reasons and circumstances for not conducting recruitment process. A Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in Sanjay Agarwal (supra), had observed that nobody can claim as a matter of right that recruitment on any post should be made every year. We are in agreement with the said proposition. Mere publication of the advertisement for recruitment at a belated stage cannot be a ground for grant of any bonus marks or relaxation in the maximum age limit.

¶34

54. In view of the foregoing discussions, all these petitions are disposed of looking to the fact that the petitioners have dedicated a quite long period of time to the post of Anganwadi Worker and have crossed the age of 45 years which is restricting their eligibility to participate in the recruitment process for the post of Supervisor, this Court hopes and trusts that the State Government would formulate some suitable scheme or provide some relaxation in the relevant rules so as to afford an opportunity of participation in the recruitment process for the post of Supervisor, to those who lost their chance because of crossing of the age of 45 years, within a period of three months

¶35

-4-

¶36

from today. The State Government, if so advised, may also take into consideration implementing the guidelines issued by the Central Government with regard to promoting the Anganwadi Workers on the post of Supervisors, as per its requirement. ”

¶37

Considering the fact that the issue of eligibility/relaxation has already been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Smt. Padmavati Sahu (supra) , this petition stands disposed of in the light of the observations

¶38

made therein.

¶39

1. The petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before the respondent authorities, and the concerned authorities are directed to decide it in accordance with the law and in light of the judgment passed in the matter of

¶40

Smt. Padmavati Sahu (supra) .

¶41

1. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶44

Nadim

Bindulata Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindulata Chandrakar 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shakuntala Kushwaha Vs Vidyasagar Dubey

Smt. Roshani Agrawal Vs Vaibhav Agrawal

Anand Dubey Vs Ramesh Kumar Trivdei

Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation ( Transport Department ) Vs Jasbeer Singh Bagga

Dharmendra Kumar Kunjam Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Jitendra Kumar Markam Vs the State of Chhattisgarh