Chattisgarh High Court
Madhulata Jaiswal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 January, 2022
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (C) No. 418 of 2022
Smt. Ruby Siddique W/o Irfan Siddique, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
Talat Manzil, Juna Gaddi, Sadar Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food Civil
Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Block 2, Third Floor,
Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2. Registrar, Chhattisgarh State Consumer Commission, Near Bus
Stand, Pandari, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 304 of 2022 Madhulata Jaiswal W/o Late Ajay Kumar Jaiswal, Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. 2, Block 1, Vasundhara Residency Park, Sattipara, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.)
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Block 2, Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. Registrar, Chhattisgarh State Consumer Commission, Near Bus Stand, Pandari, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Arham Siddiqui, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Govt. Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 24.01.2022
1. The two writ petitions have been filed by the two petitioners having common grievance and seeking a common relief. Thus, both these writ petitions have been taken up and decided by a common order.
2. The two writ petitions have been filed seeking for the following reliefs:
(i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in respect of appointment of women-member in District Consumer Forum, Sarguja-Ambikapur (CG).
(ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the entire selection procedure of the appointment of women-member in District Consumer Forum, Sarguja-Ambikapur.
(iii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to allow the petitioners to participate in the interview procedure for the appointment of women-member in District Consumer Forum, Sarguja-Ambikapur and decide their candidature as per law.
3. The entire dispute revolves around the selection process initiated by the respondent-State for appointment of woman member in the District Consumer Forum at district Ambikapur, Sarguja. Both the petitioners were aspirant for the said post and had submitted their respective claim applications which have not been accepted by the respondents and as a result the two petitioners have not been called for interview.
4. That on 08.11.2021, the department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection had issued an advertisement for the purpose of 3 appointment to various posts of unreserved candidates and also women candidates where vacancies exist in the State. According to the petitioners, since both of them were having the requisite educational qualification and also the required experience and further they fulfilled all the requisite eligibility criteria, they had submitted their respective application forms along with the required demand draft. The last date for submission of the application was 08.12.2021. The petitioners had applied well within the time and their applications were also received. According to the petitioners, since they fulfilled all the eligibility criteria as was required under the advertisement, they were hopeful of being called and being subjected to interview. However, the petitioners were not called for interview and subsequently the respondents after processing all the applications that were received called for the eligible candidates for interview on 9th January, 2022. Since the petitioners were left out, they have approached this Court by way of the present two writ petitions seeking for the prayers as are reflected in the preceding paragraphs of this order.
5. According to the petitioners, their candidature has been deliberately discarded by the respondents in spite of meeting all the requisite eligibility criteria. The petitioners alleged malafides against the officers of respondent no.2 who have tampered with the application forms of petitioners for the purpose of declaring them disqualified from participating in the selection process.
6. According to the petitioner in WPC No. 304/2022, when the petitioner came to know that she has been left out from the interview, she immediately approached the department concerned and met the Dy. Secretary of the department who informed the petitioner that there 4 were certain documents which were not found to be enclosed along with the application submitted by the petitioner. It is the further contention of the petitioner that upon such information received from the Dy. Secretary, she had immediately furnished another set of all those documents which were found to be missing from the enclosures along with her application. According to the petitioner, she had cured the defects well within the time and in spite of that she was not called for interview and as a consequence she has been left out from being considered for appointment as a woman member in the District Consumer Forum at Ambikapur-Sarguja.
7. According to the petitioners, they have been deliberately kept out of the race as both the petitioners had substantial credentials in their favour for being considered for appointment to the post of women member in the District Consumer Forum. The petitioners apprehend that some mischief has been played in the office of the respondent no.2 at the behest of somebody who is interested or may be at the behest of somebody who has already held the post for quite sometime and has again applied and has now become quite acquainted with the officers of the respondents and they must have been able to get things managed detrimental to the interest of the petitioners.
8. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the petition denied all the allegations levelled by the petitioners and submitted that there is absolutely no malafide alleged against any specific officer of the respondents or a particular candidate who has been subjected to interview. Thus, the allegations raised by the petitioners are all on assumptions and presumptions. The State counsel further 5 contended that none of the officers of either respondent no.1 or under the respondent no.2 have any personal grudge against either of the petitioners so as to act in a manner detrimental to their interest. According to the State counsel, the entire selection process has been duly scrutinized by the officers holding responsible post and the respondents have scrutinized the candidature of petitioners strictly in accordance with the application forms that were submitted and the enclosures annexed thereto.
9. Learned State counsel referring to the original documents in respect of the two candidates which this Court had called for scrutiny during the course of hearing contended that so far as the petitioner in WPC 304/22 is concerned, from the limited documents which are found to be enclosed along with the original application form, she does not seem to have the requisite experience of 15 years in social field which was mandatorily required as per the advertisement itself. A similar submission has also been made by the state counsel in the case of the petitioner in WPC No. 418/22 whereby according to the State, it was difficult to clearly visualize the 15 years of experience required in the social field. According to the State counsel, in the case of the petitioner in WPC No. 418/22, there were documents referring to her experience that she had rendered here and there and which by itself was difficult to reach to the conclusion that she had the requisite experience of continuous 15 years. State counsel further submits that there was absolutely no reason for the respondent authorities to keep away the candidature of the petitioners without in any manner personally knowing them and also having any personal bias.
10. As regards the contention of the petitioner in WPC 304/22 that 6 the petitioner was permitted to cure the defect and default in the application, the state counsel contended that such a mechanism was not otherwise provided or permissible. If at all if that was permitted, it was none of those officers who were in-charge of the selection process and such a procedure cannot be permitted for the petitioner alone. If at all such a method was to be adopted, it had to be uniformly applied to all such similarly placed persons and it cannot be extended only in favour of one of the candidates ignoring the claim of all other candidates. According to the State counsel, the entire proceedings have been drawn strictly as per the schedule fixed for the selection process and the entire recruitment process except for the issuance of appointment orders has already been finalized. That all the eligible candidates have been subjected to interview and the meritorious candidates have also been sorted out, therefore it cannot be interfered with at this juncture exercising the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
11. At this juncture, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioner in WPC No.418/22 in fact had gone and met the concerned Minister of the department raising her grievances of her being victimized by not calling for the interview and not considering for the said post and the cornered Minister had authorized the Secretary of the department to look into the grievance and to take appropriate steps. It was than that the petitioner had gone and submitted the additional set of documents so far as her experience is concerned.
12. Learned counsel for petitioners further relied upon a document issued from the office of the District Collector, Ambikapur dated 22.03.2021 in respect of an earlier advertisement for the said post 7 which was scrutinized at the level of the district Collector and certain recommendations were made. He submitted that both these petitioners before this Court were found eligible and they were recommended by the District Collector in his order dated 22.03.2021 and the learned district Collector specifically endorsed the requisite experience of the two petitioners which fact has not been appreciated by the respondent authorities this time when the petitioners had made their applications to the respondent department as per the advertisement.
13. State counsel, to this submission, submitted that the recommendations made by the District Collector on the previous occasion was not available with the Committee scrutinizing the applications of the candidates who had applied. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners cannot be based upon a recommendation in the past. The candidature of petitioners was independently assessed by the Selection Committee and the Committee reached to their subjective satisfaction so far as the experience is concerned. Therefore, the same cannot be said to be in any manner erroneous or bad in law nor does the action warrants any interference by the High Court at this juncture.
14. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of the record particularly the original records that have been made available by the state counsel in respect of the applications submitted by the two petitioners, so far as the petitioner in WPC 304/22 is concerned, certain documents which the petitioner has relied upon to show the experience were missing from the said bunch and in the absence of which, it did not reflect the petitioner in WPC 8 304/22 to have an experience of 15 years.
15. Now as regards the contentions on the allegation that the documents have been misappropriated or tampered or misplaced by some persons having vested interest, the same is difficult to presumed or assumed in the absence of any concrete evidence available. It was for this purpose this Court had called for the original records which the respondents' counsel made available on Saturday i.e. 22nd of January, 2022 itself. On perusal of the same, the relevant documents were not found enclosed along with the main application. Under the said circumstances, it would be difficult to reach to the conclusion by this Court as to whether the petitioner had made available these documents at the first instance or not so far as her experience is concerned. Further as regards the furnishing of all these documents by the petitioner at a later stage, accepting such a procedure would be contrary to the selection process and such a system cannot be accepted only for the petitioner herself. If the petitioner was to be permitted to rectify the defect/error in her application, the similar benefits would also have to be extended to all similarly placed candidates whose applications were defective.
16. As regards the petitioner in WPC No. 418/22, this Court also on perusal of the records does not find sufficient material to reach to the conclusion that the petitioner has 15 years of continuous experience in the field of social work. The petitioner does have certificates issued from different agencies and authorities from time to time but those documents were not clearly indicating continuous 15 years of experience. As per the contention of the petitioner herself, the same was to be inferred from the certificates which if not properly 9 appreciated as claimed by the petitioner, the Selection Committee cannot be found fault with.
17. Moreover, this Court apart from calling for the original records of the two petitioners would not be in a position to conduct an enquiry of the nature of investigation as to whether those missing documents were filed or not, if filed who has misplaced the same and who was behind the misplacement of the documents etc. Such investigating powers would be beyond the realm of writ jurisdiction.
18. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioners calling for an interference with the selection process neither does this Court find the case of petitioners to be strong enough for the purpose of granting of relief as sought for in these two writ petitions.
19. Both these writ petitions thus fail and are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai