SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Chh) 313

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ., Arvind Kumar Verma, J.
Shyam Kunwar D/o. Late Brijlal - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Naya Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) - Respondent
WA No. 395, 397 of 2023
Decided On : 22-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi and Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Adv.
For the Respondent/State:Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Sushobhit Singh and Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advs.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the rules existing at the commencement of the selection process and the limitations of judicial review in interfering with the selection process unless there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules.

Headnote:

Selection Process - Appointment on the post of Panchayat Secretary - Advertisement dated 10.03.2015 - Corrigendum issued on 16.04.2015 - Guidelines and rules issued from time to time - Writ petition challenging the corrigendum - Single Judge setting aside the corrigendum and directing completion of selection process as per original advertisement and guidelines - Appellate Court directing consideration of writ petitioner's candidature without disturbing the appointment of those already appointed - [Higher Secondary, Graduation, Post Graduation, MBA, experience, PGDCA/DCA] - The court discussed the advertisement, corrigendum, guidelines, and rules issued from time to time, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the rules existing at the commencement of the selection process. The court also highlighted the limitations of judicial review in interfering with the selection process unless there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants participated in a selection process for the post of Panchayat Secretary based on an advertisement dated 10.03.2015 and a subsequent corrigendum issued on 16.04.2015. The writ petitioner challenged the corrigendum, and the Single Judge set it aside, directing the completion of the selection process as per the original advertisement and guidelines. The appellate court directed the consideration of the writ petitioner's candidature without disturbing the appointment of those already appointed.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the corrigendum changing the criteria for award of marks was not permissible and emphasized the importance of adhering to the rules existing at the commencement of the selection process. It also highlighted the limitations of judicial review in interfering with the selection process unless there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules.

Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the corrigendum changing the criteria for award of marks and the appropriate course of action following the writ petitioner's challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the corrigendum changing the criteria for award of marks was impermissible and directed the consideration of the writ petitioner's candidature without disturbing the appointment of those already appointed.

Final Decision: The appellate court set aside the Single Judge's order to revisit the selection and appointment process, directing the State to consider the writ petitioner's candidature without disturbing the appointment of those already appointed.

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1. WA No. 395/2023 and WA No. 397/2023 arises out of judgment dated 27.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2485/2015 and other connected matters. Since both these appeals arise out of a common order, they are being considered and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the appellants in both the appeals are that are that an advertisement dated 10.03.2015 was issued by Chief Executive Officer, (for short, the CEO) Zila Panchayat Korea, inviting applications for appointment on the post of Panchayat Secretary in Zila Panchayat Korea, District Korea. The appellants participated in the said proceedings and they were selected on the post of Panchayat Secretary. The appellants were appointed on 22.06.2015. They were earlier appointed as Rojgar Sahayak and after their selection as a Panchayat Secretary, they resigned from the post of Rojgar Sahayak and had joined on the post of Panchayat Secretary on 06.07.2015, 03.07.2015 and 03.07.2015. All the appellants were working on the post of Rojgar Sahayak for the last more than 8 years. The appellants are holding the requisite qualifications for appointment on the post of Rojgar Sahayak, as per the advertisement issued on 10.03.2015.

3. On 10.03.2015, the advertisement was issued by the CEO, Zila Panchayat, Korea, inviting applications for appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Sachiv/Secretary. The advertisement was issued for filling up 47 posts of Gram Panchayat Sachiv. 11 Posts were reserved for unreserved category, 3 posts were reserved for Schedule Tribe, 26 posts were reserved for Schedule Caste and 7 posts were reserved for other backward class. The appellant No.1 belongs to schedule caste, appellant No.2 belongs to OBC category and appellant No. 3 belongs to the Scheduled Tribe categorry, whereas the writ petitioner was the candidate of unreserved category. The mode of selection was based upon the merit list. Clause No. 7 of the advertisement deals with the award of marks which is as under:

    “i. For Higher Secondary :65% of marks of marks obtained

ii. For Graduation: Additional 3 marks

iii. For Post Graduation: Additional 5 marks

iv For MBA: Additional 10 marks

v. For experience of working as Gram Panchayat Sachiv or Rojgar Sahayak-/other equivalent posts for one year: 5 marks for 2 years: 7 marks for 3 years: 10 marks.

vi. For PGDCA/DCA: Additional 10 marks.”

4. A corrigendum was issued on 16.04.2015 and in the said corrigendum the criteria for award of marks were changed as under:

“i. For Higher secondary

65% of marks of marks obtained.

ii. For Higher education

3 marks for Graduation

5 marks for Post Graduation

iii. Experience of working on post of Rojgar Sahayak

Maximum 30 marks.”

5. As per the advertisement, clause No. 16 the guidelines and rules issued from time to time would be made applicable and therefore, the Zila Panchayat Korea has issued the corrigendum and there was no irregularity in the corrigendum issued on 14.05.2015. The writ petitioner- Asif Raza filed a writ petition (WPS No. 2485/2015) questioning the corrigendum dated 14.05.2015 (Annexure A/6) issued by CEO, Zila Panchayat Korea and praying for a direction to the respondent authorities conclude the selection process for appointment on the post of Panchayat Secretary in accordance with the advertisement dated 10.03.2015.

6. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe as well as Ms. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respective appellants submit that from bare perusal of the relief claimed in the writ petition, it appears that appointment of the appellants were not challenged by the writ petitioner. Admittedly, the appointment orders of the appellants were issued on 22.06.2015 and all the appellants have joined the posts and rights have been accrued in their favor. However, the learned Single Judge completely failed to appreciate the directions issued on 16.04.2015 and the fact that the writ petitioner also participated in th

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top