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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 11067

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH KUMAR BANJARE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPS/1383/2021



2026:CGHC:17803 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1383 of 2021

1 - Ramesh Kumar Banjare S/o Nand Kumar Banjare, Aged About 26 Years R/o Narra, Post Barhi, Tahsil And District Balod (Chhattisgarh), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Geology And Mining Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Director, Directorate, Geology And Mining Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - Ku. Prerana Sen, D/o Niranjan Singh Sen, R/o C/o Anupam Jofer, Near New Bus Stand, Kankalin Para, Kanker (Chhattisgarh), District :

Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G.

For respondent No.3 : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

20.04.2026

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :

“10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 10.08.2018 (Annexure P/1) in respect to respondent No. 3 and also set-aside the objection letter dated

16.07.2018 (Annexure P/6).

10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to consider the petitioner for the post of Assistant Chemist.

10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate. 10.4. Cost of the petition.”

2. The facts in brief are that an advertisement for the post of Assistant Chemist was published on 30.06.2017. The required eligibility criteria was a Post-Graduate Degree in Organic Chemistry or Analytical Chemistry. Preference would be given to the candidates who possess B.Sc. Degree with Geology subject. There were total 3 posts. The petitioner, respondent No.3 and other eligible candidates applied for the said post. The petitioner possesses M.Sc. Degree in Organic Science and B.Sc. Degree with Geology subject. Respondent No.3 possesses M.Sc. Degree in Analytical Chemistry but she did not have B.Sc. Degree with Geology subject. A merit list was prepared pursuant to marks obtained by the candidates in Post-Graduation. Name of the petitioner appears at Serial No.10 as he secured 75.88 marks, whereas, name of respondent No.3 was at Serial No.2 and she secured 82.40 marks. The objections were invited by the Selection Committee on 25.04.2018 and the petitioner raised specific objection with regard to consideration of candidature of respondent No.3 as she was not possessing B.Sc. Degree with Geology subject. The objection of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 16.07.2018 and said document is a part of return filed by the State. An offer of appointment was issued in favour of respondent No.3 as she was a meritorious candidate and her name appeared at Serial No.2 in the merit list. At present, she is working on the post of Assistant Chemist under respondent No.2. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.3 and further, decision taken by the Selection Committee on his objection dated

16.07.2018.

3. Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the advertisement as well as in the Recruitment Rules, it is prescribed that weightage would be given to the candidate who possesses B.Sc. Degree with Geology subject. He would further submit that the petitioner is a Graduate with Geology subject but he has not been given preference by the Selection Committee and such action of respondent No.2 is bad in law. He would contend that respondent No.3 is a Post-Graduate in Analytical Chemistry and she did not possess B.Sc. Degree with Geology Subject, therefore, respondents No.1 & 2 should have extended weightage to the petitioner over respondent No.3 while considering his candidature. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed in the matter of Krishna

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