Tushar Kanti Roy Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:10543

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 2272 of 2015

¶6

Tushar Kanti Roy S/o Shri Ravindra Nath Roy, Aged About 35 Years, P.S.Kotwali R/o Orna Camp Adawal, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District- Bastar , Chhattisgarh

¶7

--- Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary of Educaiton Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Raipur , Raipur , Chhattisgarh.

¶10

The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary of Medical Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Raipur, Raipur District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Late Shri Bali Ram Kashyap Smriti Shashkiya Chikitsa Mahavidyalay, Dimrapal P.S. Kotwali, Jagdalpur Civil And Revenue District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Dean Late Shri Bali Ram Kashyap Smriti Shashkiya Chikitsa Mahavidyalay, Dimrapal, P.S. Kotwali, Jagdalpur, Civil And Revenue District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Nemichand Sahu S/o Shri Jagdev Ram Sahu, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Nakulnar, P.S. Dantewada, Civil And Revenue District- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

Shri Abhay Bagh S/o Shri Syamal Bagh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Dharampura 02, Jagdalpur P.S. Kotwali Civil And Revenue District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

---Respondents

¶16

2

¶17

_____________________________ For Petitioner-	_______________________________________ : Mr. Punit Ruparel & Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Advocates.
For State/Respondents No. 1	to 4.:Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer appears along with Dr. Avinash Meshram, OIC.
For Respondent No. 5	: Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 6	: Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate.

¶18

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board

¶19

04.03.2025

¶20

This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

¶21

“10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 27.02.2015 (Annexure P/5) with respect to the petitioner’s case.

¶22

10.2. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as a peon as per merit list.

¶23

10.3. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to conduct enquiry about the illegal act committed by respondents No. 3 & 4.

¶24

10.4. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire record of the petitioner’s case.

¶25

10.5 Any other relief, which may deem fit, in the interest of justice.

¶26

The facts of the case, as projected in the present writ petition, in brief, the petitioner is aggrieved by respondents No. 3 & 4, whereas the respondents No. 3 & 4 issued advertisement for job of Laboratory Attendant and Peon in their Mahavidyalya, the last date for applying for the said posts is 10.06.2014. In said advertisement, a Lab Attendant post is mentioned at Serial No. 16 and for

¶27

3

¶28

Peon at Serial No. 20. The petitioner had applied for the post of Peon and the concerned respondent authority had issued admit card to him after due process of law, the petitioner was selected for the post of Peon and with this effect, the merit list was issued by respondents No. 3 & 4, whereas the petitioner was selected for the post of Peon in General Category, his roll number was 1519, in the waiting list, there are three candidates in general category namely Shri Krishna Kumar Das, Shri Sanjeev Panigrahi & Shri Vikas Sikdar, but all of sudden, the name of the petitioner was being replaced by respondent No. 5 Nemichand Sahu, whose name was mentioned in the selection list of Laboratory Attendant was appointed as Peon, whereas he is not in the merit list of the Peon instead of he was selected for the post of Laboratory Attendant , the name of respondent No.5/ Nemichand Sahu has been shifted from the list of Laboratory Attendant to the list of Peon and Nemichand Sahu (Respondent No.5) appointed as Peon by impugned order dated 27.02.2015 (Annexure P/5), thereafter the petitioner made the representation before respondents No. 3 & 4 and also applied to obtain concerned documents through R.T.I., but till date no reply was given by respondent No. 3 & 4. Hence, this present petition filed by the petitioner.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 27.02.2015 (Annexure P/5) passed by respondent No. 3 & 4 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, biased and against the provision of law and Constitution of India, the petitioner has passed the examination for the post of Peon and as per merit list he is shown as a selected candidate for the post of Peon in general category and if, suppose he is not appointed, then the waiting list candidate becomes eligible for the post of Peon, but same is not done by respondents No. 3 & 4. Nemichand Sahu/Respondent No. 5 is shown in the selected candidate for the Laboratory Attendant in merit list, but all of sudden

¶30

4

¶31

he was appointed as Peon, though he is not in the merit list of Peon. Respondent No. 6/Abhay Bagh appointed as Laboratory Attendant and respondent No. 5/ Nemichand Sahu name is replaced from the list and shifted in the merit list of Peon and given appointment just to give benefit and employment to respondent No. 6/Abhay Bagh. He next contend that the illegal act done by respondents No. 3 & 4 just to adjust for respondent No. 6/Abhay Bagh in the post of Laboratory Attendant, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 illegally mix up the merit list of Peon and Laboratory Assistant, whereas both are the different lists and selected for the different purpose. The petitioner raised his objection by way of representation, but till date of filing of this petition, the same has not decided by respondents No. 3 & 4.Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶32

On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4/State strongly opposes the above prayer as made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the merit list (Annexure P/3), petitioner is claiming that he was selected for the post of Peon, though it was only a provisional list and not the final list. It is submitted that during the preparation of final list, it was found that respondent No. 5/Nemichand Sahu has secured highest marks i.e., 48 marks among all the candidates who appeared for the post of Peon as well as Laboratory Assistant for which, the same examination was conducted and as per Section 4 (4) of Adhiniyam, 1994, if a candidate of reserved category gets highest marks, then he can be shifted in the list of general category and on that basis, respondent No. 5 got selected for the post of Peon from unreserved category. Copy of the relevant part of 4 (4) of Adhiniyam, 1994 is filed as (Annexure R-1) and as per Madhya Pradesh Gazette Notification Dated 8^th September, 1989. It is clearly provided that a candidate having his name in the list does not give him right to be selected for any post until and unless, the

¶33

5

¶34

appointing authority finds him appropriate for selection after due examination. Copy of Madhya Pradesh Gazette Notification Dated 08.09.1989 is filed as Annexure R-2. So, it is clear that respondent No. 5/ Nemichand Sahu got selected for the post of Peon, therefore, the general candidates could not be selected. Hence, this petition is without any merit, liable to be dismissed.

¶35

Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that the petitioner is claiming for appointment as his name is mentioned in the provisional list and when subsequently final list was prepared, it was found that answering respondent No. 5/Nemichand Sahu has secured highest marks i.e., 48 marks and accordingly, he was kept in the first position in the selection list of unreserved category and was appointed rightly. Copy of final selection list showing the name of answering respondent No. 5/ Nemichand Sahu is annexed as Annexure R-5/2 and copy of provision in this regard is annexed as Annexure R-5/3. The petitioner has not challenged the final selection list and also suppressed the fact that final list has been issued and claiming his right only on the basis of provisional list, which is not sustainable. The mere selection does not give any right to the candidates and it is for the appointing authorities to take appropriate decision after necessary enquiry as per Rules, 1989. Copy of relevant Rules, 1989 is annexed as Annexure R-5/4. He next contend that respondent No. 5/Nemichand Sahu was appointed and he was in probation period at that time and now he has been confirmed for the post of Peon and copy of confirmation letter/order is annexed as Annexure R-5/5. Respondent No. 5/ Nemichand Sahu has got 48 marks, whereas the petitioner has got only 40 marks and hence, he cannot be selected. So, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record.

¶37

6

¶38

It is not disputed in this case that respondents No. 3 & 4 issued advertisement for the post of Laboratory Attendant and Peon for their College and the last date for applying was 10.06.2014. It is also not disputed that petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 & 6 appeared in the selection process and as per Annexure P/3, petitioner’s name was published in the final merit list for the post of Peon and as per Annexure P/4, respondent No. 5/Nemichand Sahu’s name was published in the final merit list for the post of Laboratory Attendant and respondent No.6/ Abhay Bagh’s name was found place in waiting list for the post of Laboratory Attendant.

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that respondent No. 5/Nemichand Sahu has secured 48 marks, whereas the petitioner has secured only 40 marks, so respondent No. 5/ Nemichand Sahu was posted as Peon in place of petitioner. Respondents have also filed joint merit lists and score-sheets of all candidates and as per petitioner it is clear that in the final selection list of Peon (Annexure P/5), respondent No.5/ Nemichand Sahu is posted as Peon. As per final selection list and waiting list of Laboratory Attendant (Annexure P/4) , respondent No.5/ Nemichand Sahu has secured 48 marks and respondent No. 6/ Abhay Bagh has secured 45 marks, but the respondents/appointing authority has posted respondent No. 5/ Nemichand Sahu as Peon and posted waiting list candidate i.e., respondent No. 6/ Abhay Bagh as Laboratory Attendant.

¶40

As per order dated 12.02.2025, this Court had directed the respondents/State to file proceedings/copy of minutes of Selection Committee for its perusal before the next date of hearing, but respondents/State has failed to comply with the said order passed by this Court and has only filed marks-list as Annexure R/4 & Annexure R/5 for the post of Laboratory Attendant and Peon. It is clear from Annexure R/4 & Annexure R/5 that respondent No.6/Abhay

¶41

7

¶42

Bagh’s roll No. is 1249 and he has secured 45 marks and respondent No. 5/Nemichand Sahu’s roll No. is 1597 and he has secured 48 marks, but the respondents/ appointing authority has not made it clear as to on what basis they have appointed respondent No. 6/Abhay Bagh for the post of Laboratory Attendant and despite direction of this Court, respondents/appointing authority has failed to produce copy of minutes of Selection Committee.

¶43

However, today, competent Officer of Govt. Medical College Jagdalpur is present before this Court, who was posted at that time as Joint Director cumSuperintendent, Maharani Hosptial, Jagdalpur, District- Jagdalpur, presently he is posted at Govt. Medical College, Ambikapur as a Dean and he is also unable to explain the said fact and when Court asked him that how many posts are still vacant for the post of Peon, he answered that 08 posts are still vacant. It is clear from Annexure P/3 that petitioner’s name finds place in the final selection merit list of Peon and respondent No. 5/Nemichand Sahu name is neither found place in selection list nor even in the waiting list of the Peon. On what basis waiting list candidates who got lesser marks than respondent Nos. 5 & 6 were appointed as Laboratory Attendant is not mentioned anywhere and respondent No. 5 is selected for the post of Peon on the ground that he has secured highest marks i.e. 48 marks than the petitioner. It is clear from all merit lists and provisional selection list that respondent authority/appointing authority has failed to explain that on what basis they have appointed respondent No. 6/Abhay Bagh for the post of Laboratory Attendant and Respondent No. 5/Nemichand Sahu who got highest marks, has been posted for the post of Peon.

¶44

Be that is it may, the fact remains that as on date 08 posts of Peon are still vacant and petitioner’s name finds place in final merit list of the Peon. Respondent No. 5/Nemichand Sahu is also working since long, so this petition

¶45

8

¶46

is disposed of with this direction that respondents/appointing authority shall give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Peon from the back date i.e., when the respondent No. 5/Nemichand was appointed on the said post, with all consequential benefits except the monetary benefits as per rules. This exercise must be completed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶47

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶48

Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL Date: 2025.03.12 11:13:59 +0530

¶49

Sd/(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE

¶50

AMIT PATEL

Tushar Kanti Roy v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tushar Kanti Roy 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Branch Manager, Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Rajendra Kumar Sahu

Anil Kumar Singhania Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pankaj Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Dr. Onkar Lal Burman

Surendra Kumar Mahilang Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ejaj Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh