IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, J.
Shashi Prabha Ojha W/o Jai Mangaleshwar Bhagat – Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 2658 of 2014
Decided On : 05-12-2023
Appointment - Petitioner's Appointment Dispute - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India] - [Annexure P-2, P-7, P-8, R/3, R/4, R/5, R/6] - The court addressed the dispute regarding the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Grade-III at Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon. The court considered the validity of the select list, the inquiry into the recruitment process, and the subsequent cancellation of the selection procedure. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's appointment within 60 days and granted her seniority without monetary benefits from the date of assuming duties.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was selected for the post of Assistant Grade-III, but the appointment was delayed due to complaints and an inquiry. The President-in-Council ultimately cancelled the selection procedure and issued a new advertisement for the post.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was a deserving candidate for the appointment and directed the respondents to consider her appointment within 60 days, granting her seniority without monetary benefits from the date of assuming duties.
Issues: Delay in appointment, validity of select list, cancellation of selection procedure, and seniority without monetary benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was a deserving candidate for the appointment and directed the respondents to consider her appointment within 60 days, granting her seniority without monetary benefits from the date of assuming duties.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the court directed the respondents to ensure steps for considering the petitioner's appointment for the post of Assistant Grade-III within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner was also entitled to seniority without monetary benefits from the date she assumes her duties.
ORDER :
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs:
(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the respondents authorities for its kind perusal.
(iii) Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”
2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that, in the year 2000, the petitioner was appointed as Community Organizer in the office of Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon (Respondent No. 4) on contractual basis and since then the petitioner is working regularly therein and her term of service has been extended from time to time. The petitioner since the date of appointment to the post of Community Organizer in the office of Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon (Respondent No. 4), has discharged her duties to the utmost satisfaction of her superiors and has never given any chance of under performance. During her tenure of service, the petitioner has obeyed all the orders and had worked and functioned as an all-rounder in the office of Respondent No. 4. On 28/12/2011, the office of Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon (Respondent No. 4) has issued an advertisement for direct recruitment of one post as Assistant Grade-III in the reserved category as Scheduled Tribe.
3. The petitioner along with other candidates after perusing the advertisement has filled the form by submitting all the necessary documents expedient in the terms and clauses of advertisement dated 28/12/2011. After receiving the forms and documents, the office of Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon (Respondent No. 4) has sort listed and had issued the list of candidates who are eligible. The petitioner was one of them who was sort listed and the name of the petitioner is at Serial No. 3, in the list of eligible list. On 20/01/2012, the office of Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon (Respondent No. 4) has issued a letter to the petitioner for her appearance as interview to be held on 31/01/2012, in the office of Joint Director, Town Administration & Development, Sarguja Division (Respondent No. 8). Thereafter, on 31/01/2012, the petitioner had appeared in the interview held in the office of Joint Director, Town Administration & Development, Sarguja Division (Respondent No. 8) and then the District Selection Committee after verifying the records and on the basis of merit, have made the recommendation for appointing the petitioner to the aforesaid post of Assistant Grade-III, in the office of Respondent No. 4, as the petitioner was found to be most suitable and deserved candidate for selecting to the aforesaid post. On 12/03/2012, the office of Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pathalgaon (Respondent No. 7) has made a correspondence to the office of Nagar Panchayat Pathalgaon (Respondent No. 4) for further proceeding in appointing the petitioner to the aforesaid post, in compliance of the selection done by the District Selection Committee on 31/01/2012, but to the words of hamper, the office of Respondent No. 4, instead of heeding to the correspondence made by the Respondent No. 7 and Respondent No. 8, is sitting barren and introvert over the constitutional right of the petitioner to be appointed as Assistant Grade-III, after duly been selection in pursuant to the advertisement (Annex
The appointing authority should provide legally acceptable justifiable reasons for non-appointment of candidates in the waiting list, and the inaction in filling up vacant posts without justifiable r....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the illegality of appointments made by the Panchayat Employment Committee, the entitlement of the writ petitioner to be offered appointment and con....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the illegality committed by the Selection Committee in denying appointment to the writ petitioner and accommodating the appellant, as well as the p....
The inaction of the government in not appointing candidates from the waiting list without justifiable reasons is arbitrary, bad in law, and illegal.
Selected candidates do not have a vested right to claim appointment, and the state has the authority to fill vacancies based on valid reasons.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.