Ramnarayan Soni Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

Reserved on 24.01.2025 Pronounced on 02.05.2025

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 2714 of 2015

¶6

Ramnarayan Soni S/o Shri Sitaram Soni Aged About 50 Years C/o Pankaj Jewellers, Hardibazar, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgar ... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh,

¶9

2. Director, Directorate Urban Administration And Welfare Department, R.D.A. Building, Bajrang Complex, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat- Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4. Shivaji Rao Jadhav Sub-Engineer, Nagar Panchayat Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate For State : Shri Aman Tamboli, PL For R-3 : Shri Shivin Mishra and Shri Nitesh Sahu, Advocates

¶13

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶14

C A V Judgment

¶15

This petition is against the order dated 15.04.2015 (Annexure P-9) rejecting the representation made by the petitioner for appointment of Sub Engineer in Nagar Panchayat, Dabhara.

¶16

Facts in brief: The petitioner is present working as Upper Division Teacher (UDT for short) in Pre-middle School, Ratija, Block Paali, District Korba, CG. He is

¶17

2

¶18

holding Diploma in Civil Engineering. On 06.11.2019 Directorate of Urban Administration and Welfare Department issued an advertisement for appointment on the post of Sub-Engineer by way of direct recruitment and the petitioner applied for the same by seeking permission from the competent authority. He also cleared the recruitment process and was selected for appointment on the post of Sub-Engineer.

¶19

He was thus appointed on the said post in Nagar Panchayat, Dabhra vide order dated 21.09.2010 which is filed as Annexure P-2. In the appointment order itself it was mentioned that the petitioner was required to join his duties within 10 days or else his services would be deemed to be terminated. He was also required to produce original certificates, medical certificate, character certificate and other ones. When the petitioner was deputed in census duty by Tahsildar, Pali, the appointment order was served on him on 21.09.2010 and that as per the appointment order he was obliged to join the post of Sub-Engineer within 10 days therefrom. On being relieved from the census duty on 28.09.2010 the petitioner reported in the office of respondent No.3 on 30.09.2010 and requested for extension of time to complete the prerequisites, but as the CMO of the said Nagar Panchayat was not present on 29^th and 30^th of September, 2010 he submitted a letter on 30.09.2010 (Annexure P-5) in the office of respondent No.3 seeking age relaxation meant for government servants and also requesting for extension of time to complete the formalities required for joining. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the office of respondent No.3 many a time for joining and submitting the required documents but the authority concerned did not accept his joining. Surprisingly, respondent No.3 vide its letter dated 04.10.2010 (Annexure P-6) acting upon its earlier order dated 21.09.2010 reported to the office of respondent No.2 that as the petitioner did not join within a period of 10 days, his services may be terminated. Subsequently, the petitioner field a Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondent/authorities to allowing him to join on the post of Sub-Engineer where this Court vide interim order dated 16.12.2010 directed that any appointment made during the pendency that petition will be subject to its outcome. Finally, the petition came to be allowed vide order dated 28.11.2014

¶20

3

¶21

with the observation and direction to respondent No.2 to pass appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioner. On 12.02.2015 the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.2 who by order dated 15.04.2015 (Annexure P-9) rejected the same stating that one Shivaji Rao Jadhav had been appointed in place of the petitioner, that his services have already been terminated, and that it is respondent No.3 who is required to take decision on his application. It has brought forth by away of amendment that respondent No.4 was appointed on 29.11.2010 when application of the petitioner for extension of time was already pending.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned dated 15.04.2015 passed by respondent No.2 is illegal and contrary to law. He submits that finding of the Director that it is the CMO who was having the authority to reject the application for extension of time is illegal and contrary to the provision of Section 88 of the CG Municipalities Act which says that the State Government is the appointing authority of the members of the Municipal Services (Health) and the Director purportedly exercise the power delegated by the State. He however submits that according to Section 88 CG Municipalities Act the Director cannot further sub-delegate his powers to CMO. He further submits that the order appointing respondent No. 4 was not brought to the notice of this Court though while granting interim order it was specifically observed that any appointment made during the pendency of the petition would be subject to its outcome. He submits that the petitioner has already lost many years of service due to negligence of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and now the State has taken the stand that appointment of petitioner is not possible. He submits that the action of depriving the petitioner of his legitimate right and giving appointment in his place to respondent No.4 is illegal and arbitrary, or else extension as requested by him might have been granted as provided in Rule 5(5) of the CG Civil Services (Jointing Time) Rules, 1982. He submits that the appointment made by Director cannot be cancelled by respondent No.3 – the CMO. He further submits that as the petitioner was deputed in census duty which is emergency in

¶23

4

¶24

nature and despite this being communicated to respondent No.3, his request for extension of time was not considered, which is arbitrary on its part.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 supports the order impugned and submits that after following due process of law the petitioner was selected as Sub Engineer (Civil) and appointed as such in Nagar Panchayat, Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa. Respondent No.2 after adopting due process directed respondent No. 3 for issuance of appointment order in favour of the petitioner vide letter dated 03.08.2010 (Annexure R-1) in which it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner was to join the said post within 10 days from the date of issuance thereof, or else his appointment would be cancelled. However, it is submitted that the petitioner did not join the post within the period asked for, rather he submitted an application for extension of time to do so. This fact was reported by respondent No. 3 to the Joint Director, Urban Administration Development, Bilaspur vide letter dated 04.10.2010. He further submits that in the meantime the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court seeking a direction for taking his joining on the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) at Nagar Panchayat, Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa, which was disposed of vide order dated 28.11.2014 directing respondent No. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner. It is submitted that in compliance of the order dated 28.11.2014 the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected vide order dated 15.04.2015 (Annexure P-9) and that as the petitioner had not joined within the time stipulated, the wait-list candidate was giving appointment vide order dated 22.11.2010 by respondent No.2 and in pursuance thereof order dated 29.11.2010 (Annexure R-2) was issued to respondent No.4 by respondent No.3, and as such no vacant post was left there for the petitioner. It is submitted that the appointment given to respondent No.4 vide order dated 29.11.2010 has not been challenged by the petitioner, and therefore, on this count the petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. Almost similar argument has been advanced by counsel for respondent No.3.

¶26

5

¶27

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended to the petition as also the return.

¶28

The documents on record show that the petitioner who was initially working as Upper Division Teacher (UDT for short) in Pre-middle School, Ratija, Block Paali, District Korba, in pursuance of an advertisement issued by Department of urban Administration and Welfare, applied for the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) by seeking necessary permission from the competent authority. After clearing the recruitment process he was selected also for appointment on the said post and in the appointment letter it was mentioned that the petitioner was to join his duties within 10 days or else his services would be deemed to be terminated. He was also required to produce original certificates, medical certificate, character certificate and other ones. The appointment order was served on him on 21.09.2010 and at that time he was engaged in census duty. On being relieved from census duty on 28.09.2010, the petitioner reported in the office of respondent No.3 on 30.09.2010 and requested for extension of time to complete the prerequisites for joining. However, on 04.10.2010 respondent No.3 informed respondent No.2 that as the petitioner did not join within a period of 10 days, his services may be terminated. Petitioner then field a Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondent/authorities to allowing him to join on the post of Sub-Engineer where this Court vide interim order dated 16.12.2010 directed that any appointment made during the pendency that petition will be subject to its outcome. Finally, the petition came to be allowed vide order dated 28.11.2014 with the observation and direction to respondent No.2 to pass appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioner. On 12.02.2015 the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.2 who by order dated 15.04.2015 rejected the same stating that one Shivaji Rao Jadhav (R-4) had already been appointed in place of the petitioner.

¶29

To substantiate his argument, counsel for the petitioner laid emphasis on Rule 5 (5) of The Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Joining Time) Rules, 1982, which reads as under:-

¶30

6

¶31

“5 (5) Extension of joining time beyond the limits indicated in sub rule (4) may be granted up to the maximum limit of 30 days by the head of department [ and beyond thirty days by the Administrative Department], the guiding principle being that the total period of joining time should be approximately equal to eight days for preparation plus reasonable transit time plus holidays, if any, following the extended joining time. While computing the transit time, allowance could be made for time unavoidably spent due to disruption of transport arrangements caused by strike or natural calamities.”

¶32

The aforesaid Rule, if read in letter and spirit, appears to be discretionary in character and not mandatory. If the facts are recapitulated for a while, the time granted to the petitioner as per the appointment order, to necessarily submit the health related certificate, educational documents and other relevant certificates, was seven days. However, for giving joining with all the relevant documents, the time stipulated in the appointment order was 10 days. The petitioner had obviously received the appointment order on 21.09.2010 but does not appear to have made any request for extension till 30.09.2010. Even on 30.09.2010 the petitioner, as is evident from the documents, did not approach respondent No. 3 for joining but to seek extension of time for joining and completing the formalities related to the same. The Supreme Court dealing with an identical issue in the matter of Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam and another v. Mukesh Kumar reported in (2004) 13 SCC 596 has held as under:

¶33

“8. ….This only shows that the respondent was not really serious in accepting the offer of the appellant and joining the duty with the appellant. Herein, we may notice it is on record that respondent was serving in an Engineering College as a Lecturer, therefore, obviously he was in no hurry to join the selected post with the appellant. This is further fortified by the fact that the appellant chose to file the writ petition on 24.08.2000….”

¶34

Relying on the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court the Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 24.06.2019 passed in WA No. 339/2015 (Nilesh Kumar Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh and another) has held that there is no legal obligation to extend the period of joining.

¶35

7

¶36

Already being in service as Upper Division Teacher with posting at Premiddle School, Ratija, Block Paali, District Korba, CG, the petitioner does not seem to have been in hurry to join the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) within the time stipulated in the appointment order and eventually on 30.09.2010 he moved an application seeking extension. Even on 30.09.2010 did not choose to join. In these circumstances and keeping in mind the decision of the Supreme Court and that of the Division Bench of this Court referred to above, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner particularly when on account of indolence of the petitioner his post has already been manned by respondent No.4.

¶37

Accordingly, the petition being without any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶40

Judge

¶41

Jyotishi

Ramnarayan Soni v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramnarayan Soni 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

Raju Prasad Kewat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Girish Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Anand Sales Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner

Pawan Kumar Baghel And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Tameshwar Lal Harmukh And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Suresh Kumar Verma and Ors. Vs Nagar Palika Parishad Bhilai Charoda and Ors.