Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
Durgesh Yadav S/o. Late Shriram Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Public Works Department and ors.- Respondents
WPS 3320, 2204, 2209 of 2016
Decided On : 09-10-2023
Appointment Dispute - Selection Process - [Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Act, 2005, Section 3(7), 18(1)] - The court considered the dispute arising from the cancellation of the selection process for various posts and subsequent appointment orders issued by the respondent authorities. The petitioners sought the declaration of results and challenged the subsequent advertisement. The court analyzed the legality of the selection process, the cancellation of the advertisement, and subsequent appointments, and concluded that the petitioners failed to make a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions were dismissed, and the interim orders were vacated.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents issued an advertisement for filling regular posts of Data Entry Operators, Assistant Grade-3, Assistant Programmer, Stenographer, and Steno-Typist. The petitioners appeared for appointments in different divisions, and the results for some divisions were withheld. The respondents issued appointment orders for some candidates, which were later terminated and reinstated following a court order. The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking the declaration of results and challenging subsequent advertisements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not challenge the cancellation of the entire selection process, and subsequent appointments for certain divisions were already made. The court concluded that the petitioners failed to establish a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the legality of the selection process, cancellation of the advertisement, subsequent appointments, and the petitioners' challenge to the subsequent advertisement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners did not challenge the cancellation of the entire selection process and subsequent appointments for certain divisions. The court also emphasized the statutory requirement for rules to have binding effect and the need for publication in the official gazette.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the interim orders were vacated. The court found that the petitioners failed to make a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
ORDER :
1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in all writ petitions, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order.
WPS No. 3320 of 2016.
The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for following relief:-
(ii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner.
(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner
WPS No. 2204 of 2016.
The petitioner has prayed for following relief:-
(ii) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to declare the results of the examination and interview held pursuant to advertisement dated 10.07.2013 (Annexure P/2).
(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.
WPS No. 2209 of 2016.
The petitioner has prayed for following relief:-
(ii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.
2. Brief facts as reflected from the records are that the respondents No. 2 issued advertisement on 10.07.2013 (which was sent for publication in the news paper on 02.07.2013) for filing regular post of Data Entry Operators, Assistant Grade-3, Assistant Programmer, Stenographer and Steno-Typist. The respondent for conducting the examination for the said posts has divided the State of Chhattisgarh into 31 divisions. The examination was conducted as per advertisement.
3. The petitioner in WPS No. 3320 of 2016 has appeared for appointment on the post Data Entry Operator from Bilaspur Division. In WPS No. 2204 of 2016, petitioner No.1 appeared for appointment on the post of Data Entry Operator from Jashpur Division, Petitioner No.2 and 3 have appeared for appointment on the post of Data Entry Operator from Surguja Division. In WPS No. 2209 of 2016, the petitioner No.1 appeared for appointment on the post of Data Entry Operator from Khairagarh Division, Petitioner No. 2 and 3 have appeared for appointment on the post of Data Entry Operator from Bilaspur Divsion and Petitioner No. 4 has appeared for appointment on the post of Data Entry Operator from Raipur Division. The respondents have declared the result only for Raipur Division and result of other divisions was withheld by them. The respondent No.2 has issued appointment order for 67 persons for different posts for appointment in the Raipur Division only and out of 67 persons, 38 persons joined on 28.08.2014. Thereafter, the respondents have directed for termination of their services vide order 10.03.2015 and thereafter individual order of termination was issued on 12.03.2015. Against the termination order, the employees have preferred the writ petition before the Single Bench of this Court which was dismissed on the ground that no illegality has been committed by the Government in terminating the appointment of the employees. The employees have preferred Writ appeal No. 484/2015 and other connected Appeals before the Division Bench. The Hon’ble Division Bench has allowed the appeal and passed the following order in paragraph 15,16 and 17 which are as under:-
The judgment emphasizes the statutory requirement for rules to have binding effect and the need for publication in the official gazette. It also highlights the limited scope for interference under Ar....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of the entire selection process should only be considered if there is no chance of segregating genuine candidates from those ....
Point of Law : It is open for the authority concerned not to fill up vacancies but such decision should not be arbitrary or unreasonable.
Candidates do not have a vested right to insist on the completion of a recruitment process if it is cancelled based on valid reasons, including changes in qualifications and reservation policies.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of a recruitment process must be justified by concrete and relevant material, and the authority must follow reservation and r....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
