Ku. Jyoti Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:5328

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 9240 of 2023

¶6

1 - Ku. Jyoti Soni D/o Shri Ramkhilavan Soni Aged About 22 Years Digitally VISHAKHA signed by Residence Of Ward No. 14 Singhouri, Near Hanuman Temple Sonipara BEOHAR VISHAKHA BEOHAR P.S. City Kotwali Bemetara District- Bemetara (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Law And Legislature Department, Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur DistrictRaipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - The District And Session Judge Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - The President Selection Committee, Office Of District And Sessions Judge, Bilaspur DistrictBilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

4 - Rajesh Yadav S/o Shri Rajkumar Yadav Residence Of Village- Nirtu Post Office Ghutku DistrictBilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

5 - Awadesh Kumar Tiwari S/o Diwakar Tiwari Residence Of PostSamar TahsilTakhatpur DistrictBilaspur (C.G.)

¶14

6 - Devendra Rao Bhosle S/o Janardan Rao Bhosle R/o Ward No. 3 Mahamaya Para Ratanpur District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶15

2

¶16

7 - Pankaj Singh S/o Suresh Singh R/o Hathnikala Post- Hathnikala TahsilPathariya, DistrictMungeli (C.G.)

¶17

8 - Pramendra Singh Thakur S/o Murari Singh Thakur R/o Bahtarai Road Atal Awas Kamla Nehru Nagar District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶18

9 - Chandrashekhar S/o Sukhram Singh R/o Village- Jhaliyapur, PostBhalapur DistrictMungeli (C.G.)

¶19

10 - Smt. Santoshi Verma W/o Late Santosh Kumar Verma R/o VillageMarrakona Post- Bavli P.S. Sargaon Tahsil- Sargaon, District- Mungeli (C.G.)

¶20

11 - Smt. Rameshwari W/o Angad Kumar Patle R/o Block No. K- 5, Ward No. 1, Atal Awas Sakri District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶21

12 - Smt. Suchitra Sutradhar W/o Osit Sutradhar R/o Suryavihar (Patanwar Colony) Face-1, In Front Of Satnam Bhawan, Yadunandan Nagar Tifra, DistrictBilaspur (C.G.)

¶22

13 - Shivshankar S/o Bhojram R/o Markara Post- Jhabdi, P.S. Kasdol DistrictBaloda BazarBhatapara (C.G.)

¶23

14 - Sachin Kumar Dansena S/o Ramcharan Dansena R/o VillageBade Dumarpali Post- Pamgarh Tahsil- Kharsiya District- Raigarh (C.G.)

¶24

15 - Kanhaiya S/o Laxmi Prasad R/o Ward No. 64 Mahamaya Nagar Birkona P.S. Koni Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶25

16 - Rupesh Kumar S/o Late Shankar Lal R/o Post- Tundari, TahsilBilaigarh DistrictSarangarhBilaigarh (C.G.)

¶26

17 - Manish S/o Subhash Chand R/o Indrapuri Nagar Tifra District-

3

(C.G.)

Bilaspur

18 - Smt. Neelu Kumari W/o Manoj Kumar Navrang R/o Ward No. 7 Satnami Para Kirkar District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.)

¶31

19 - Sudha Ogare D/o Vyas Ogare R/o Minimata Nagar Near Jaitkham Talapara DistrictBilaspur (C.G.)

¶32

20 - Surendra Kumar Dhurve S/o Kanhaiya Lal Dhurve R/o VillageBedapat Post Office- Kargikhurd P.S. Kota District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶33

21 - Ramchandra Bada S/o Bhagtu Bada R/o Village- Sargaon PostKamari P.S. And Tahsil- Shankargarh District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶34

22 - Gajendra Singh S/o Dhansingh R/o Police Line House No. 10 Bilaspur DistrictBilaspur (C.G.)

¶35

23 - Smt. Ohama Tirkey W/o Raj Kumar Tirkey R/o Jail Line Rajendra Nagar Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶36

... Respondents

¶37

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶38

For Petitioner(s) :- Mr. B.L. Dembra, Advocate For State :- Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondents

¶39

No. 4 to 15 & 17 to 23 :- Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate

¶40

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

30.01.2026

4

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

¶45

reliefs:-

¶46

“10.1 The Hon'ble court may be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner from the respondents for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

¶47

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure P-6) issued by the office of respondent no. 2

¶48

10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the name of petitioner for appointment to the post of peon under the freedom fighter family quota.”

¶49

Facts of the case are that the petitioner, a family member of a freedom fighter and falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Chhattisgarh, applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.06.2023 issued by respondent No. 2 for appointment to the post of Peon under various categories and duly submitted her online application along with attested documents. After verification, she was issued an admit card bearing Roll No. 576 and appeared in the written examination held from 11.10.2023 to 13.10.2023 between 9.00 AM and 10.30 AM. Upon completion of the recruitment process, respondent No. 2 published a provisional selection and waiting list, wherein the petitioner’s name appeared at Serial No. 7 in the waiting list without granting marks under the

¶50

5

¶51

freedom fighter quota. Objections were invited by respondent No. 3 vide notice dated 16.10.2023, and the petitioner submitted her objection on the same day; however, without deciding the said objection, respondent No. 2 issued appointment orders in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 23. Subsequently, on 20.10.2023, the petitioner’s objection was rejected on the ground that appointments had already been made on the basis of merit. Hence this petition.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking grant of extra marks/preference on the ground that she belongs to the family of a freedom fighter. In support of his submission, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the advertisement, wherein under Clause 6, sub-clause (4), it is specifically provided that in the appointment to the post of Peon, preference shall be given to the family members of freedom fighters. It is contended that no such preference or extra advantage has been extended to the petitioner, and as such, the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities and has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

¶53

Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that there is no such clause in the advertisement providing for grant of extra marks or any additional advantage. It is contended that Clause 6, sub-clause (4) of the advertisement merely states that preference

¶54

6

¶55

shall be given to the family members of freedom fighters, and nowhere does it provide for award of extra marks or any special weightage. Therefore, it is submitted that the present petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

¶56

Learned State counsel has also supported the contention made by learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶57

Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 15 and 17 to 23 submits that these respondents were selected through the said advertisement and have also supported the arguments advanced by respondents No. 2 and 3. It is further submitted that they were duly appointed after following due process of law. The grievance raised by the petitioner is misconceived, and therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

¶58

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

¶59

From a bare perusal of Clause 6, sub-clause (4) of the advertisement, it is evident that no advantage in respect of marks is required to be conferred upon the petitioner. The only benefit contemplated therein is a preferential right, and not parity or equivalence in marks with other candidates. Since the petitioner has not been equated with the marks of the selected candidates, the claim of preference cannot be sustained.

¶60

7

¶61

Considering the overall submissions advanced by the parties and the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for interference. Accordingly, the petition is

¶62

dismissed .

¶63

sd/-

¶64

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶65

Vishakha

Ku. Jyoti Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Jyoti Soni 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

Manik Lal Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Nidhisha Sharma Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

The New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Tulshi Ram Dhruw

Jitendra Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Shashi Goswami Vs Omkar Prasad Sahu

Smt. Gangawati Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh