Khileshwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Managing Director, Chhattigarh State Minor Forest Produce Co-Operative Federation Ltd., Vandhan Bhawan, Sector -24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Collector Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Managing Director District Minor Forest Produce Co-Operative Federation Ltd. Dalli Road, Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Gorelal Tandon, Advocate on behalf
	of Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State	: Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent No. 3	: Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate.

¶15

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

11/11/2025

¶18

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶19

“101 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the selection list dated 31.10.2022

¶20

2

¶21

(Annexure P-4) released by the respondent No.3.

¶22

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be direct to the respondent No.2 to release a merit list of the eligible candidates mentioning their percentage of the educational qualifications according to the recruitment rules.

¶23

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.”

¶24

Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner has challenged the selection list and waiting list dated 31.10.2022 issued by the respondent No. 3, and seeks a direction to quash or set aside the said lists and to release a proper merit list of eligible candidates indicating the percentage of marks obtained in their educational qualifications. It is submitted that there were five vacancies for the post of Manager, Primary Minor Forest Produce Co-operative Society Limited under the respondent No. 3, for which an advertisement was issued in accordance with the Primary Forest Produce Co-operative Federation Limited Manager Service (Employment, Terms & Working Conditions) Rules, 2016. The petitioner, who fulfills all the eligibility conditions and criteria prescribed under the said rules, duly submitted her application. After scrutiny, the respondent No. 3 released a list of eligible candidates on 14.10.2022, in which the petitioner’s name appeared at Serial No. 4. However, on 31.10.2022, the

¶25

3

¶26

respondent No. 3 published the selection and waiting lists without disclosing the basis or criteria adopted for the selection of candidates. The petitioner submits that the entire selection process lacks transparency, as the respondent authorities failed to prepare the merit list on the basis of the percentage of marks obtained by the eligible candidates as required under the relevant recruitment rules.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for the post of Manager, Primary Minor Forest Produce Co-operative Society Limited, Balod (C.G.), in response to the recruitment notification issued by the competent authority. It is submitted that although the petitioner possesses all the requisite educational qualifications, experience, and eligibility criteria prescribed for the said post, her candidature was not considered, and she was not selected. It is further contended that only one vacancy was available for the said post, and despite the petitioner being more meritorious and eligible, the respondents have arbitrarily ignored her claim and selected another candidate without assigning any justifiable reason. Aggrieved by such an illegal and unjust selection process, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court by way of the present petition seeking appropriate relief.

¶28

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that there was only one post available for the position of Manager, Primary Minor Forest Produce Co-operative Society Limited, Balod, C.G. The

¶29

4

¶30

petitioner participated in the said selection process but could not secure sufficient marks to be selected, as she obtained 77.20 marks and was placed at serial No. 6 in the select list, whereas one Shri Bhoj Kumar, who secured 80.6 marks, stood first and was accordingly selected and appointed to the said post. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner, having failed to qualify and secure selection on merit, has filed the present petition merely being aggrieved by her non-selection. Hence, the petition is wholly devoid of substance and merits and is liable to be dismissed. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of D. Sarojakumari vs. R.Helen Thilakom and others reported in (2017) 9 SCC 478 and also reliance upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Manish Kumar Kashyap and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Public Health and Engineering Department and others .

¶31

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that while evaluating the petitioner’s candidature, her marksheet for B.Sc. (Information Technology) 3rd year was not taken into consideration by the respondent authorities. It is further submitted that the omission to consider the said marksheet has adversely affected the petitioner’s overall merit position in the selection process. Learned counsel contends that had the petitioner’s complete academic record, including her 3rd year marksheet, been duly considered, her total marks would have

¶32

5

¶33

been higher, and she would have secured a position within the merit range sufficient for selection to the said post.

¶34

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the petitioner has failed to annex the relevant mark-sheet at the time of the recruitment process. It is contended that, upon perusal of the documents, it is evident that although the petitioner had submitted the mark-sheets of B.Sc. (IT) Part-I and Part-II, she did not submit the mark-sheet of B.Sc. (IT) Part-III during the recruitment proceedings. The said mark-sheet has only been annexed subsequently with the present petition. Therefore, since the complete academic record was not placed before the authorities at the relevant time, the petitioner’s candidature could not be duly considered, and consequently, she was not appointed to the said post.

¶35

Learned counsel for the State, while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has rightly been denied appointment to the post in question, as the action of the authorities is in strict conformity with the governing rules and the procedure prescribed for the selection process. It is further submitted that there has been no illegality, irregularity, or arbitrariness in the decision-making process warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court, and the State fully adopts and reiterates the arguments advanced by learned counsel for respondent No. 3 in support of the impugned action.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶37

6

¶38

material available on record.

¶39

From a careful perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner, perhaps inadvertently, failed to file certain essential documents that were required to be submitted as part of the selection process. Owing to the non-submission of these relevant documents, the petitioner could not be awarded the requisite marks that were duly obtained by the selected candidate. Consequently, in the absence of such necessary documentation and the resultant shortfall in the petitioner’s marks, the relief sought by her in the present petition cannot be granted.

¶40

Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, it is evident that the petitioner has failed to make out any ground warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner do not disclose any illegality, infirmity, or procedural irregularity in the impugned action of the respondents. Hence, finding no substance or merit in the present petition, the same deserves to be and is hereby held to be devoid of merit and is accordingly liable to be dismissed.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶43

Judge

¶44

Raghu Jat

Khileshwari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khileshwari 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

Pushpa Kiran Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prasann Kumar Bhatpahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Shankar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkapur Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ghanshyam Singh Binjhwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh