Writ Petition (S) No. 4615 of 2014. Case: Jivrakhan Lal Verma and Ors Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.. Chhattisgarh High Court
|Case Number:||Writ Petition (S) No. 4615 of 2014|
|Party Name:||Jivrakhan Lal Verma and Ors Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Prateek Sharma, Advocate and For Respondents: Gary Mukhopadhyay, Deputy Govt. Adv.|
|Judges:||Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.|
|Judgement Date:||February 06, 2017|
|Court:||Chhattisgarh High Court|
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J., (At Bilaspur)
The petitioners, who are six in number, had filed this writ petition calling in question legality and validity of the advertisement dated 4-5-2013 and the merit list dated 22-8-2014 (Annexure P-1) and also the appointment of respondents No. 3 to 13 on the post of Data Entry Operator.
The above-stated challenge has been made on the following factual background:--
The Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board - respondent No. 2 herein (for short 'the Board') issued an advertisement for recruitment and appointment on various posts including 12 posts of Data Entry Operator. Method of selection was clearly specified in the said advertisement. A category-wise list was to be prepared on the basis of merit based on the respective marks secured by the candidates on the strength of their minimum educational qualifications as prescribed under the Regulations and the advertisement. It further provides that amongst the candidates so placed in the merit list, candidates in the proportion being five times the number of posts advertised in the order of merit shall be called for proficiency test/interview. A merit list shall then be prepared on the basis of cumulative marks so obtained by the candidates in step (a) and step (b) from which the appointments shall be made in the order of merit. Certain benefits were also provided to the departmental candidates/contract appointees including age relaxation of five years, 5% additional marks if the appointment is for a period less than 3 years and 10% additional marks if the appointment is for a period more than 3 years. Last date for submission of application forms was 7-6-2013. The petitioners as well as the private respondents along with other candidates submitted their respective applications claiming candidature. List of eligible and ineligible candidates was prepared inviting objections up to 13-9-2013. List of eligible candidates was prepared after determination of the objections on eligibility, who could be called for proficiency test. The petitioners as well as the private respondents were declared eligible and they appeared in the proficiency test. On 30-1-2014, a notice was published by the respondent No. 2 Board on the website informing the candidates to appear in the proficiency test according to the dates notified on the website. From 10-2-2014 onwards for four days, proficiency test was conducted for the post of Data Entry Operator wherein the petitioners as well as the private respondents participated in the proficiency test without any demur and objection. Thereafter, on 28-7-2014, the petitioners preferred a representation before the Managing Director of the Board duly certifying their consent to the selection process and mentioning the fact that they have participated in the process and requested for grant of preference without any challenge to the selection process adopted by the Board and the advertisement. However, on 6-8-2014, for the first time, the petitioners also preferred a representation before the Minister of Agriculture questioning the selection process. On 22-8-2014, final merit list was prepared for appointment on the post of Data Entry Operator. On 11-3-2015, respondents No. 3 to 13 were appointed.
The writ petition was filed challenging the advertisement and the merit list as well as by way of amendment, the appointment letters issued to respondents No. 3 to 13 stating that the advertisement is contrary to the Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipanan Seva Viniyam, 1998, therefore, they are liable to be struck down being arbitrary and in violation of the applicable regulations.
Return has been filed by the Board stating inter alia that the petitioners had already participated in the proficiency test without any protest and demur and when the final selection list was prepared, thereafter, objections were made. Additional return has been filed by respondent No. 2 stating inter alia that on 26-2-2007, it has been resolved that all the circulars and orders issued by the General Administration Department would be adopted by the Board and same would be applicable to the Board, and in accordance with the GAD circular dated 1-2-2013, the advertisement in question has been issued by the Board and as such, there is no illegality and therefore the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
The private respondents have also made similar averments by filing their separate...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL