JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2/State on I.A. No. 2 of 2024, which is an application for condonation of delay.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No.2 of 2024 is allowed and delay of 119 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner against the order dated 09.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2209 of 2016 (Shiv Kumar Singh & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 took a decision to issue an advertisement in the newspapers for inviting application for filling the sanctioned and regular post of Data Entry Operators, Assistant Grade - 3, Assistant Programmer, Stenographer and Steno-Typist (through direct appointment mode) and the advertisement was published on 10.07.2013. It is submitted that for the conduct of the said examination the State of Chhattisgarh was divided into 31 divisions and applications were called division wise, meaning thereby, that candidate residing in Raipur shall submit the application form in Raipur Division. Herein, it is pertinent to mention that the selection process was only one and was to be conducted for the entire State of Chhattisgarh and the said fact that one common selection process was carried out for all the divisions can be made crystal clear from the following clauses of advertisement dated 10.07.2013 (Annexure P/1 in the writ petition):

^^¼c½ izk;ksfxd ijh{kk ¼n{krk@dkS'ky ijh{kk½%&
¼5½ ftl dk;kZy; ds fjDr ds fo:) vkosnu Ik= izLrqr fd;k tk jgk gS] mlh dk;kZy; izeq[k dks okafNr izek.k Ik+=ksa ,oa lwfp;ksa dh lR;kfir izfr;ka lfgr ml fnukad 31-07-2013 rd iathd`r Mkd@LihM iksLV }kjk dk;kZy;hu le; esa vfuok;Z :i ls izkIr gks tkuk pkfg,A foyac ls@lh/ks izkIr gq, vkosnu Ik=ksa ij dksbZ fopkj ugha fd;k tkosxk rFkk dksfj;j lsok ls izsf"kr djus okys vkosnu i=ksa dks Lohdkj ugha fd;k tkosxkA
¼6½ vkosnu izLrqr djrs le; fyQkQs ds Åij vkosfnr in dk uke] tkfr laoxZ ,oa lacaf/kr ftys dk uke Li"V :i ls vafdr gksuk pkfg,A
¼7½ vkosndksa dks NŸkhlxढ+ dk ewy fuoklh gh gksuk vfuok;Z gSA
¼8½ CkLrj ,oa ljxqtk laHkkx ds varXkZr vkus okys ftyksa ds fjDr inks gsrw vkosnu djus okys vH;kfFkZ;ksa ,s dks ml ftys dk LFkkuh; fuoklh gksuk vfuok;Z gSA
¼21½ dkS'ky ijh{kk@lk{kkRdkj ,d gh fnol dk gksuk gSA vr% mEehnokj fdlh ,d gh dk;kZy; ij vkosnu i= izLrqr djsaA
¼22½ ;g fu;qfDr NŸkhlxढ+ jkT; ds fy, gS vr,o p;fur mEehnokj dks fjfDr;ka ds vk/kkj ij NŸkhlxढ+ jkT; ds fdlh Hkh ftys esa inLFkkiuk nh tkosxhA^^

A bear perusal of the clause numbers 21 and 22 clearly provides that the selection process was common for the entire State of Chhattisgarh.

5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that the appellant/writ petitioner having all the requisite qualifications applied for the vacant post of Data Entry Operator from Kheragarh division. As per the advertisement the results of the selection process were to be declared on 31.08.2013, but results of only Raipur division was declared. Here in, it is pertinent to mention that list of eligible candidates and interview call letter of the appellant was declared by the respondent authorities. She further submits that a controversy cropped up in the appointments which were granted for the Raipur division. In Raipur division appointments were granted to 67 persons in different post, on which 38 persons joined. Thereafter, vide order dated 10.03.2015, it was decided that since the advertisement was issued on the bas