Rahul Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Chief Engineer (Hr), Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Danganiya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Executive Director Generation, Chhattisgarh. State Power Generation Company Limited, Madwa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

(Cause Title is taken from CIS System)

¶15

For Petitioner	: Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, Panel Lawyer
For Resp. No. 2 & 3	: Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate

¶16

2

¶17

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

13/04/2026

¶20

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :

¶21

“10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 28.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2.

¶22

10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent/state authorities consider the claims of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Plant Attendant or any other similar post commensurate to the qualifications possessed by the petitioner.

¶23

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

¶24

Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the land of petitioners was compulsorily acquired by the respondent–State authorities for the establishment of a Thermal Power Plant. The acquisition proceedings were carried out in accordance with law, including issuance of requisite notifications and passing of a final award. The petitioner’s name was included in the list of affected persons whose lands were acquired, and under the applicable policy, such affected persons were entitled to consideration for grant of employment in the respondent establishment. Following

¶25

3

¶26

completion of the acquisition process, notices were issued to the affected persons for disbursement of compensation and extension of other rehabilitation benefits. In terms of the Chhattisgarh State Rehabilitation Policy, the petitioner was nominated for consideration for employment, and the relevant notices issued in this regard. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted an application seeking employment in lieu of acquisition of his land, along with requisite documents evidencing his educational qualifications, including 10+2 and a Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) in Civil Engineering. It is also borne out from the record that, in certain instances, candidates possessing B.E. degrees have been granted appointment to the post of Plant Attendant Grade-2. Further, as reflected from the public notice issued by the respondents, a number of posts in the respondent establishment remain vacant. In the aforesaid background, the present petition has been filed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law, and therefore deserves to be set aside. It is contended that the action of the respondents suffers from non-application of mind and is contrary to the material available on record as well as the applicable policy governing the field. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a duly qualified candidate possessing a Bachelor of Engineering

¶28

4

¶29

(B.E.) degree in Civil Engineering, along with other requisite educational qualifications, and is fully eligible for appointment to the post of Plant Attendant Grade-2 or any other equivalent post commensurate with his qualifications. Learned counsel contends that the said post is an entry-level position in the respondent establishment and the petitioner fulfills all the necessary technical requirements prescribed for the same. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is a project-affected person whose land has been compulsorily acquired for the establishment of the respondents’ project, and as such, he is entitled to consideration for employment under the Chhattisgarh State Rehabilitation Policy. It is argued that the policy specifically provides for grant of employment to such affected persons, and denial of the same to the petitioner defeats the very object and purpose of the rehabilitation scheme. It is further contended that the respondents have acted in a highly arbitrary and unreasonable manner in rejecting the petitioner’s claim on the ground that he is not a technically qualified person. Learned counsel submits that a B.E. degree in Civil Engineering is undeniably a technical qualification, and the reasoning assigned by the respondents is ex facie erroneous and contrary to settled principles. Hence, it is urged that the impugned order be quashed and appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment in accordance with law.

¶30

5

¶31

Learned State counsel submits that although it is not in dispute that the petitioner’s land was acquired for the establishment of the Thermal Power Plant and that he was nominated for consideration of employment under the Chhattisgarh State Rehabilitation Policy, the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Plant Attendant Grade-II is wholly misconceived and contrary to the applicable recruitment criteria. It is contended that as per the amended circular dated 04.09.2018, the prescribed educational qualification for the said post is 10+2 along with ITI certification in the relevant trade, and the petitioner, despite holding a B.E. (Civil) degree, does not possess the requisite technical trade qualification as mandated, and therefore cannot be held eligible. Learned counsel further submits that mere existence of vacancies does not entitle the petitioner to appointment in absence of requisite eligibility, and the competent authority, upon due consideration of the petitioner’s qualifications and the applicable rules, has rightly rejected his claim vide order dated 28.08.2023. Accordingly, it is contended that the present petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.

¶32

Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that the petitioner’s claim is misconceived and devoid of merit, inasmuch as the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Plant Attendant Grade-II in terms of the applicable circular dated 04.09.2018, which mandates specific technical

¶33

6

¶34

trade qualifications not held by the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner, being a nominee of a Phase-II land oustee, falls in a lower priority category under the Rehabilitation Plan, 2015, and his candidature can only be considered subject to availability of posts after accommodating more affected persons of Phase-I. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s application was duly considered and rightly rejected vide order dated 28.08.2023, and at present, his candidature is under consideration for alternative employment in accordance with the applicable policy; hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that, at this stage, there is a likelihood of consideration in respect of grant of employment to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons, inasmuch as a meeting is proposed to be convened by the competent authorities to deliberate upon the issue. In view of the aforesaid, it is jointly prayed that the present matter may be disposed of with a direction that, in the event no relief is ultimately granted to the petitioner by the concerned authorities, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedies, including filing a fresh petition in accordance with law.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents enclosed along with the petition.

¶37

7

¶38

It is evident that the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 28.08.2023 and seeking consideration of his claim for appointment in lieu of acquisition of his land under the applicable Rehabilitation Policy. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the parties have jointly submitted that there is a likelihood of consideration of the claim of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons, as a meeting is proposed to be convened by the competent authorities to deliberate upon the issue. In view of the said joint submission and without entering into the merits of the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with directions.

¶39

Accordingly, it is directed that the State authorities shall undertake verification of the documents submitted by the petitioner and shall forward the same to respondents No. 2 and 3 expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month. The petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned State authorities on any date in the week commencing from 04^th May, 2026 , with prior intimation/approval, and shall cooperate in the process of verification. Upon such verification, the State authorities shall forward the report to respondents No. 2 and 3, who shall thereafter consider and decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the verified documents/report.

¶40

8

¶41

With this observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of.

¶42

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the present order has been passed solely on the basis of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. It is, however, expected that respondents No. 2 and 3 shall consider the case of the petitioner in an expeditious and fair manner. It is further observed that, in the event no relief is granted to the petitioner, it shall be open for him to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶45

Judge

¶46

Shayna

Rahul Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar Sahu 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thandaram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kurban Idrishi Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Premkant Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prakash Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sarita Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh