Chattisgarh High Court
Anil Kumar Tiwari vs Deepak Kumar Thakur 96 Wps/2505/2019 ... on 5 April, 2019
Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra, Parth Prateem Sahu
1
WA No. 201 of 2019
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 201 of 2019
Anil Kumar Tiwari S/o Radheshyam Tiwari Aged About 34
Years R/o Village- Nipnia, Bhatapara, Police Station-
Bhatapara, Revenue District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Deepak Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Lakhan Lal Thakur Aged
About 33 Years R/o Vijaypur Beda Colony, Dr. Patel Gali,
Raigarh, P.S.H. Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District-
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agricultural
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bahwan, Naya Raipur,
District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Director Directorate Agriculture Engineering, Raipur, District-
Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Upper Director Agriculture Engineering Directorate, Raipur,
District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5. Joint Director Agriculture Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District-
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
6. Agricultural Engineer Agricultural Engineering Division
Bilaspur/Sarguja, Nutan Colony Infront Of Indira Vihar
Colony Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
7. The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad
2
WA No. 201 of 2019
Bhathapara, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner :- Shri Dinesh Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent-State :- Ms. Richa Shukla, Dy. G.A.
For Respondent No.1 :- Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag. CJ
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
Judgment on Board By Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag. CJ 05/04/2019
1. While considering the challenge to the appointment of appellant on the post of driver in the establishment of Joint Director Agriculture Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur the learned Single Judge has observed that the break up of marks allotted to the appellant for each of the year during which he earned experience is not properly assessed. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, remitted the matter to the Appointing Authority/Selection Committee for re- consideration of the issue concerning allotment of marks over the head of experience.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant would refer to Annexure P-10 to the writ petition to highlight that the norms have 3 WA No. 201 of 2019 been laid down in the said document which needs to adhere however the direction issued by the learned Single Judge would evolve a new procedure for calculation of marks for experience which is not permissible in law.
3. Considering the fact that the learned Single Judge has only remitted the matter back to the Competent Authority/Selection Committee for considering the entire issue afresh, we are not inclined to interfere in this Intra Court Appeal, however, it is directed that while re- considering the issue of appointment of the appellant and evaluation of marks obtained by the appellant the Competent Authority/Selection Committee shall also evaluate the marks allotted to each of the candidate over the head experience.
4. It is also observed that the Selection Committee shall apply the same yardstick in relation to all the candidates and the appellant would not be singled out for evaluation of his marks for experience.
5. The appeal is disposed of with above direction.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Prashant Kumar Mishra) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Acting Chief Judtice Judge
Ankit