Vikash Kumar Raj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:22455

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 8418 of 2023

¶6

Judgment Reserved On : 17.03.2026

¶7

Judgment Delivered On : 13.5.2026

¶8

Vikash Kumar Raj S/o Late Shri Birjoo Lal Raj, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Near Railway Crossing, Ward No.6, Mohar-Para, Manendragarh, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Law and Legislative (Election) Work, Ministry at Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Collector and District Election Officer, District Manedragadh-ChirmiriBharatpur, Manedragadh (C.G.)

¶13

3 - Upendra Kumar Appointed on the Post of Assistant Programmer In the Office Of Collector and District Election Officer, District Manedragadh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Manedragadh (C.G.)

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

Digitally signed by SHYNA SHYNAAJAY AJAY Date:2026.05.15 16:13:57 +0530

¶16

(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

¶17

2

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondent/ : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. AG State For Respondent : Mr. Pritam Singh, Advocate No.3

¶19

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶20

C A V Order

¶21

The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 3.10.2023, whereby respondent No.3 was appointed as Assistant Programmer despite allegedly being ineligible for the said post. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the merit list dated 30.09.2023 prepared for direct recruitment for the post of Assistant Programmer (Unreserved), in which respondent No.3 was selected over the petitioner. In the said recruitment process, respondent No.3 obtained 80 marks, whereas, the petitioner obtained 78 marks.

¶22

The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the petition :

¶23

10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to call the entire records pertaining to this case.

¶24

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, thereby to quash the appointment order dated 03-10-2023 of res no 3 and merit list dated 3009-2023 to the extent it relates to petitioner and res

¶25

3

¶26

no 3 after declaring it unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary.

¶27

10.3 Hon'ble court may kindly further be pleased to, direct the respondent authorities to revise the impugned merit list dated 30-09-2023 to the extent it relates to petitioner and res no 3 and further to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assistant programmer.

¶28

10.4 Hon'ble court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the pending objection/representation of the petitioner with supportive reason in accordance with law within stipulated time period and further to pass any other relief(s) which it deems fit along with cost of the petition in the interest of justice.

¶29

Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Assistant Programmer on a contractual basis vide order dated 6.7.2018 passed by the CEO, Jila Panchayat, Baikunthpur and has been continuously discharging his duties since then. The petitioner is possessing the requisite qualification and experience, as such, he is eligible in all respects for the post of Assistant Programmer as per the advertisement issued for direct recruitment. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.3 has never worked on the post of Assistant Programmer nor has he performed duties of a similar nature, therefore, he lacks requisite experience for the said post.

¶30

4

¶31

Respondent No.3 was previously engaged as a District Project Manager, Jila Panchayat, Korea. The nature of duties in the said role is mainly administrative and does not align with the technical perquisites for the post of Assistant Programmer, which necessitates specialized skill in computer programming and software development. Thus, the professional experience cited by respondent No.3 does not satisfy the mandatory experience criteria prescribed for the post of Assistant Programmer. Notwithstanding the aforementioned ineligibility, the respondent authorities have erroneously awarded 10 marks towards ‘experience’ to respondent No.3. If the 10 marks is deducted from his total marks, respondent No.3’s score would be reduced to 70 marks. In this manner, the petitioner, having secured 78 marks would emerge as the highest scorer in the recruitment process. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to be selected and appointed to the post of Assistant Programmer in place of respondent No.3, pursuant to the advertisement dated 6.7.2023. The petitioner fulfills all prescribed criteria, including the requisite experience, having served in the identical capacity of Assistant Programmer on a contractual basis since 2018. Hence this Petition.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Merit List prepared by the respondent authorities, placing respondent No.3 at the top, is not unsustainable. He submits that respondent No.3 does not possess technical experience required for the post of Assistant Programmer, which necessitates specialized proficiency in software designing and programming. While respondent No.3

¶33

5

¶34

has never worked in such a capacity in any department, the petitioner has been continuously discharging duties in the identical post of Assistant Programmer on a contractual basis since 6.7.2018 at the Jila Panchayat, Baikunthpur. He submits that by granting 10 marks for experience to respondent No.3, the respondent authorities have committed a manifest illegality. He submits that by erroneously attributing these marks to an ineligible candidate, the authorities have paved way for the wrongful appointment of respondent No.3 to the regular post of Assistant Programmer, while ignoring the candidature of the petitioner. The petitioner possesses the requisite technical experience specifically mandated for the said post, whereas the experience credited (10 marks) to respondent No.3 is not in accordance with law.

¶35

Conversely, learned counsel for the State submits that respondent No.3 has been rightly selected for the post of Assistant Programmer. He submits that as per clause 8 of the advertisement, the candidates engaged or possessing experience in work of a ‘similar nature’ are entitled to 2 marks per year, up to a maximum 10 marks. He further submits that prior service of respondent No.3 as a District Project Manager (ePanchayat) and Awas Coordinator constitutes work of a similar nature to that of an Assistant Programmer. The above submission is fortified by the equivalence in Grade Pay in the respective posts. Therefore, the award of bonus marks to Respondent No.3 is strictly in accordance with the terms of the advertisement. He also submits that the representation dated 3.10.2023 filed by the

¶36

6

¶37

petitioner in this regard, is sans merit as respondent No.3 was rightly awarded 10 marks for his prior experience He lastly submits that the entire recruitment process was conducted in a transparent manner, warranting no interference.

¶38

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the grounds raised in this petition are totally misconceived, as the marks awarded to respondent No.3 is in accordance with law. He submits that respondent No. 3 possesses experience of more than five years as the District Project Manager (e-Panchayat) at Jila Panchayat, Korea since 17.10.2012 to 7.6.2017. In this capacity, he operated all the technical programming and software management works. He was operating programming software – Panchayati Raj Accounting Software (Priyasoft), Local Government Directory, Service Plus, National Panchayat Portal, National Asset Directory, Plan Plus, Action Soft, Area Profiler, Indira Awas Soft etc. He contends that his duties involved the functional management of these systems and the monitoring of technical issues arising therein, which is work of a similar nature to that of an Assistant Programmer. Beyond system maintenance, respondent No.3 acted as a Technical Trainer, imparting instruction on these software modules to the officials and staff of Zila Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat and Gram Panchayat levels. Further, during his tenure under the Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Gramin Yojna Guarantee Scheme, respondent No.3 held the post of Computer Programmer, where he performed various computer programming tasks and software management and as such, he is

¶39

7

¶40

having sufficient experience in respect of the work of Assistant Programmer. He further submits that respondent No.3 has secured 46 marks in the written examination, 8 marks in the interview, 16 marks in the skill test and 10 marks for experience. Thus, in total, he has obtained 80 marks. On the other hand, the petitioner has obtained 39 marks in written examination, 6 marks in interview, 23 marks in skill test and 10 marks in experience and hence, he obtained total 78 marks. Ultimately, respondent No.3 was selected for the subject post due to an aggregate merit of 80 marks and the petitioner’s non-selection is attributable to his low aggregate score as compared to that of respondent No.3. Moreover, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the petitioner’s M.Sc. (Computer Science) degree obtained from Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism and Communication, Bhopal, through a Study Centre i.e. Digital Institute of Technology and Science, Kotma District Anuppur, is legally invalid for recruitment within the State of Chhattigarh and it violates the terms of the recruitment advertisement and the subject Recruitment Rules. Notwithstanding this disqualification, the respondent authorities erroneously considered the petitioner’s candidature.

¶41

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents annexed to the petition with utmost circumspection.

¶42

Admittedly, the main bone of contention in the present case pertains to the award of 10 marks for experience to respondent

¶43

8

¶44

No.3. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 has never discharged duties in the capacity of Assistant Programmer and as such, he is not entitled to grant of bonus experience marks at the rate of 2 marks per year. Further, respondent No.3 has worked on the post of District Project Officer, Jila Panchayat, Koriya, which does not involve work related to programming.

¶45

From a bare perusal of the record, it is manifest that respondent No.3 is having experience of the works related to software programming. A certificate to this effect has also been issued by the CEO, Jila Panchayat, Koriya. Furthermore, an order dated 15.11.2012 issued by the same authority unequivocally shows that respondent No.3 has been assigned various technical duties involving software programming and system management while holding the post of District Project Manager. He has also worked as Computer Programmer, as evidenced by the order dated 21.6.2021 issued by the CEO, Jila Panchayat, Koriya. All these documents go to show that respondent No.3 possesses the requisite experience in programming. Consequently, the administrative decision of the respondent authorities to award bonus marks for experience is based upon a bona fide appreciation of the service record, and such decision cannot be termed as perverse or incorrect.

¶46

Furthermore, ‘Programming’ is essentially a functional process of systemic execution. According to Oxford Dictionary: Programming is the process of writing computer programs. Similarly, according to Cambridge Dictionary: Programming is the activity or process of

¶47

9

¶48

writing computer programs and Merriam-Webster Dictionary describes it as - the process of preparing an instruction sequence that a computer can interpret and execute.

¶49

A perusal of the advertisement reveals that the criteria for awarding experience marks is engagement in work of a ‘similar nature’. Similar work is not restricted to the nomenclature of the post (Assistant Programmer) but extends to any technical capacity wherein programming duties were substantially assigned and discharged. It is manifest that respondent No.3 has performed various technical functions intrinsically linked to software programming and system management while working as District Project Manager (contractual basis) and Awas Coordinator, which has been duly scrutinized and rightly considered by the respondent authorities.

¶50

Evidently, in other districts also, candidates similarly situated to respondent No.3, holding identical prior experience, have been duly selected and appointed to the post of Assistant Programmer. Even otherwise also, the duties of an Assistant Programmer are not restricted to any single task; rather they encompass the broad spectrum of work relating to computer programming. The role cannot be narrowly confined; various other positions requiring programming skills and the software utilised therein, fall squarely within the professional purview of a Programmer. The employer is the best person to judge of a candidate’s suitability, qualification and relevance of their experience. The Selection Committee, acting as an expert body, possesses the necessary technical

¶51

10

¶52

competence to evaluate whether a candidate’s prior service satisfies the ‘similar work’ criteria.

¶53

In the present case, the applications of the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 were accepted and they have participated in the entire recruitment process without any protest or objection. The petitioner’s belated challenge that respondent No.3 does not possess requisite qualification, raised only after selection, is not only contrary to the terms of the advertisement but also disregards the actual experience held by respondent No.3. Once a candidate takes a chance and fails to emerge as the more meritorious candidate, he is estopped from challenging the eligibility of the successful candidates after declaration of the merit list. The subject advertisement specifically invited candidates with experience in work of a ‘similar nature’. As established by the relevant documents, the technical duties discharged by respondent No.3 falls within the said category. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

¶54

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the grounds raised by the petitioner challenging the award of ‘experience marks’ to respondent No.3, are misconceived and legally unsustainable.

¶55

Consequently, the Petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/-

¶56

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶57

Shyna Ajay

Vikash Kumar Raj v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Kumar Raj v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narsingh Reddy Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkumar Paikra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sesh Narayan Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rahul Meena Vs Reserve Bank of India

Rajkumar Vs Girwar Lal

Sajal Kumar Roy Vs Union of India