Chattisgarh High Court
Vinay Raj Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors on 13 September, 2024
1
2024:CGHC:36066
Digitally
NAFR
signed by
REKHA SINGH
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 3004 of 2014
Smt.Shanti Devi W/o Radheshyam Chourasiya, Aged About 29 Years
R/o Village Sonpur, Post Banja, Tah And Distt Surajpur, Cg, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Adim Jati Tatha
Anusuchit Jati Vikash, Department Mahanadi Mantralaay, New Raipur,
Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh
2 - Director Adim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikash Chhattisgarh Raipur,
And Ex-Officio, Secretary, Rajya Stariya, Chhattisgarh Adim Jati Kalyan
Awashiya Evam Ashram Shaikshnik Sansthan Samiti, Raipur, Dist
Raipur, Cg
3-Collector Adivashi Vikash Surajpur, Distt Surajpur, Cg
4 - Assistant Commissioner, Adivashi Vikash Surajpur, Distt Surajpur, Cg
5 - Principal Eklavya Adarsh Vidyalaya, Shiv Prasad Nagar, Block
Bhaiyatthan, Distt Surajpur, Cg
6 - Shri Purushottam Ram S/o Shri Somar Sai Aged About 31 Years R/o
Village Burhadanad, Post Karshi, Tah Pratappur, Distt Surajpur, Cg,
District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
7 - Jaikaran Ram Kushwaha S/o Shri Dhaneshwar Ram Aged About 37
Years R/o Village Shiv Prasad Nagar, Post Banja, Block Bhaiyatthan,
Distt Surajpur, Cg, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
and WPS No. 3052 of 2014 Vinay Raj Sahu S/o Shri Rajkumar Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bhavrahi Post Banja, Tahsil Bhaiyathan Distt. Surajpur C.G., -2- Chhattisgarh ----Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Aadim Jati And Anusuchit Jati Vikas Mahanadi Bawan, Naya Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Adim Jati Thana Anusuchit Jati Vikash Chhattisgarh Raipur And Ex Officio, Secretary, Rajya Stariya Chhattisgarh Adim Jati Kalyan Awashiya Evam Ashram Shaikshnik Sansthan Samiti Raipur C.G. 3 - The Collector Adivashi Vikash Surajpur Distt. Surajpur C.G. 4 - Assistant Commissioner Adivashi Vikash Surajpur Distt. Surajpur C.G. 5 - The Principal Eklavya Adarsh Vidyalaya Shiv Prasa Nagar Block Bhaiyatthan Distt. Surajpur C.G. 6 - Shri Purushottam Ram S/o Shri Somar Sai Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Burhadand, Post Karshi, Tahsil Pratappur Distt. Surajpur C.G. , District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Jaikaran Ram Kushwaha S/oshri Dhaneshwar Ram Aged About 37 Years /ro Village Shiv Prasad Nagar Post Banja, Block Bhaiyathan, Distt. Surajpur C.G. , District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For respective Petitioners: Ms. Savita Tiwari, Advocate and Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. and Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Advocate For respondent No.6 in : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate WPS No.3052 of 2014 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.09.2024 Heard.
1. The petitioners have challenged the order of appointment of the respondents, namely, Purushottam Ram and Jaikaran Ram Kushwaha to the post of Cook, issued by the Collector dated 26.02.2014.
2. The facts of the present case are that under Article 275(1) of the 3 Constitution of India, the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Eklavya Awashiya Vidyalaya, 2007 (for short 'the Rules of 2007") were framed and notified in the year 2007. The posts of Cook were created according to the Rules of 2007. The minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Cook was Class 8th Pass and experience of working in a hostel/hotel/canteen as a cook for a period of three years. An advertisement was issued by the Collector on 27.06.2013 for various posts including four posts of Cook. Out of four posts, one post was kept for the Unreserved category; one post for the Other Backward Class and two posts for the Scheduled Tribes community. The petitioners, private respondents of both cases and other eligible candidates submitted their applications for the said post. Based on marks obtained in the 8th Class and the experience certificate, a merit list was prepared. According to the merit list, the petitioner, namely, Shanti Devi secured 75.4 marks, the petitioner, namely, Vinay Raj Sahu secured 64.8 marks whereas Purushottam Ram secured 61 marks and Jaikaran Ram Kushwaha secured 52.6 marks. During the course of verification of the documents, the experience certificates submitted by the petitioners were not found valid, therefore, the private respondents were appointed and against that order, the petitioners have filed these two petitions.
3. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were meritorious candidates as they secured higher marks than the selected candidates. They submitted that their experience certificates were not considered properly though those certificates were issued strictly in accordance with the conditions mentioned in the advertisement and the Rules of 2007. It is further argued that the -4- petitioner, namely, Shanti Devi was working in one restaurant, namely, Chourasia Jalpan Bhandar, whereas the petitioner, namely, Vinay Raj Sahu was working as a Cook at Prabhu Misthan Bhandar, Village- Sonepur. It is also argued that according to the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the candidates had to submit experience certificates of working in a hotel/hostel/canteen. It is further submitted that the reasons assigned by the respondent authorities are arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the conditions mentioned in the advertisement and the Rules of 2007. It is further contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, a Committee was constituted and a report has been submitted. It is also contended that the experience certificates issued in favour of the selected candidates, namely, Purushottam Ram and Jaikaran Ram Kushwaha are forged documents.
4. Ms. Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, namely, Shanti Devi argued that Purushottam Ram had submitted an experience certificate showing that he had worked in 'Dal-Bhat Kendra' at Village Kerta but the Sarpanch and Secretary of that Village have categorically stated that in the year 2013, no 'Dal-Bhat Kendra' was being run by the Gram Panchayat. She further argued that in para 4 of the inquiry report, it is specifically stated that at that time, there was no Dal-Bhat Kendra in the Gram Panchayat. She further submitted that the private respondent, namely, Purushottam Ram never worked there. She also submitted that the findings recorded in para 7 that Purushottam Ram was running a restaurant in front of Mahamaya Shakkar Karkhana cannot be equated with the Dal-Bhat Kendra. She further stated that the appointment of the private respondent, namely, Purushottam Ram is 5 contrary to the conditions of the Advertisement and the Rules of 2007, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to issue an appointment order in favour of the petitioner. In support of her submissions, she placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India, reported in AIRonline 2024 SC 97, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 11 & 12 held as under:
"11. Analysis: The standard argument made consistently and successfully before the Single Judge and Division Bench must fail before us. Clauses 14 and 19 of the vacancy circular do nothing more than reserving flexibility in the selection process. They cannot be read to invest the Institute with unbridled discretion to pick and choose candidates by supplying new criteria to the prescribed qualification. This is a classic case of arbitrary action. The submission based on Clauses 14 and 19 must fail here and now.
12. The other submission of the respondent about restricting a "PG Degree" to a "PG Degree in Relevant Subject" must also be rejected. The illegality in adopting and applying such an interpretation is evident from a simple reading of the notification dated 27.04.2016 providing for additional qualifications. The additional qualifications provided under clauses 'a' to 'd' are under two categories. While 'a', 'b', and 'd' relating to PG Diploma, PG Degree, and PhD are general qualifications providing for 5, 6, and 10 marks respectively, the category under 'c' relates to Professional Qualification in the field. This is where specialization is prescribed. If we add the requirement of specialization to category 'b', i.e., PG Degree, then that category becomes redundant. The whole purpose of providing PG Degree independently and allocating a lesser quantum of 6 marks will be completely lost if such an interpretation is adopted. This can never be the purpose of prescribing distinct categories. No further analysis is necessary. We reject this submission also."
5. Mr. Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, namely Vinay Raj Sahu, submitted that the petitioner had submitted an experience certificate issued by the private restaurant and the same was not taken into consideration only on the ground that it was not issued by the registered firm and such observation is erroneous and contrary to the -6- terms and conditions of the advertisement.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Ghosh and Mr. Shukla, the learned Deputy Government Advocate and the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Tiwari and Mr. Patel. They submitted that as per the advertisement, the requirement was to submit an experience certificate issued by the registered institution restaurant or department. They further submitted a certificate issued by a local restaurant or hotel cannot be equated with the registered firm. They further submitted that the petitioners did not have the requisite experience in cooking, therefore, at the time of scrutiny, their candidatures were rejected. They also stated that pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 13.08.2024, a Committee was constituted and the matter was inquired into. Mr. Ghosh further submitted that with regard to the petitioner, namely, Shanti Devi, earlier an inquiry was conducted and it was found that she was working with her father-in-law in a restaurant and a certificate was issued by her father-in-law. He also submitted that from a perusal of paras 8 & 9 of the inquiry report dated 05.09.2024, it is evident that the Dal-Bhat Kendra was being run by Gram Panchayat and the cook left the job and in his place, Purushottam Ram was appointed on oral instructions issued by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. It is further held by the Inquiry Committee that as Purushottam Ram was engaged in Dal-Bhat Kendra on instructions of then the Sarpanch, therefore, a certificate was issued in his favour. The Committee also observed that the documents pertaining to the appointment of Purushottam Ram at Dal Bhat Kendra are not available on record.
7
7. With regard to the petitioner, namely, Vinay Raj Sahu, it is argued that a certificate issued in favour of Vinay Raj Sahu was rejected as it was not issued by the registered firm and he was working in a private hotel.
8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.
9. The private respondents, namely, Purushottam Ram and Jaikaran Ram were appointed to the post of Cook pursuant to the advertisement issued on 27.06.2013. The petitioners and the selected respondents are 8th passed and they had submitted experience certificates issued by the hotel/hostel/canteen etc. From a perusal of the merit list, it is apparent that the petitioners, namely, Shanti Devi secured 75.4 marks and Vinay Raj Sahu secured 64.8 marks whereas respondents, namely, Purushottam Ram secured 61 marks and Jaikaran Ram Kushwaha secured 52.6 marks. The petitioners were called for document verification and during the course of verification of the documents, it was found that the experience certificates issued in favour of the petitioners are not valid. Shanti Devi was working in a Hotel run by her father-in-law and an experience certificate was issued by her father-in-law. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 13.08.2024, an inquiry was conducted wherein it was found that the respondent Purushottam Ram was running a Dal-Bhat Kendra in front of Mahamaya Shakkar Karkhana and a certificate was issued in his favour by the then Sarpanch. Her statement was recorded wherein, she admitted that on her instructions, Purushottam Ram was running a Dal-Bhat Kendra.
10. In the matter of Vinay Raj Sahu, a certificate was issued by the -8- Proprietor of Shri Prabhu Misthan Bhandar on 04.07.2013. From a perusal of the certificate, it appears that the period of experience was inserted in that certificate subsequently. It is also not stated that he was cooking meals for customers, therefore, the certificate was not found valid.
11. In the present case, the respondents have not adopted the policy to pick and choose by supplying new criteria. The petitioners could not meet the required criteria of experience, therefore, they were not considered for selection.
12. It is not in dispute that the respondents, namely, Purushottam and Jaikaran Ram Kushwaha have been working in the post of Cook from the date of the appointment order i.e. 26.02.2014 and they were duly selected and appointed by the competent authority in a recruitment process.
13. In the matter of Buddhi Nath Chaudhary vs. Abahi Kumar and Others, (2001) 3 SCC 328, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if a candidate has been working on a post for more than 10 years, such a person should not be disturbed on account of some mistake.
14. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts and the law discussed above, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, both these petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha