c^^/ IN THE HQN'BLE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. ^SS^ / 2010 PETITIONER RAJKUMAR SAHU S/o Shri. Hariram Sahu, Aged about 43 Years, yfiemployed, Residing at: ^illage : Kukda, Post: Mohanda, Tehsil: Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS .>•»'" .^&- 5^^y .••''.•?•*"»\.'-' ^.^ .^" y ,}>-" ts^ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Deptt. D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, RAIPUR- 492001 (C.G.) The Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Employment Guarantee Scheme, Vikas Ayukt Karyalaya, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, RAIPURCCG) The Collector (District Programme Coordinator) National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, BILASPUR-495001 (CG) The ChiefExecutive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, MASTURI Dist. Bilaspur (CG) Shri. Harprasad Uike, S/o Shri. Sitaram Uike Agedabout 37 Yrs, Employed as Rojgar Sahayak, R/o - Village : Kukada, Post: Mahuda, Tehsil: Masturi, District: Bilaspur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 0 »•...^.0 &®3 •J) 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER Same as given in the Cause Title above. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S)_N0.5581 OF 2010 PETITIONER Rajkumar Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constiiution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri B.P. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 14* day of January, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the selection of the respondent No.5 on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak at village Kukda pursuan to the advertisement (Annexure P/4). The petitioner further sought a direction to the respondent authorities to conduct a fresh selection process for the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak in various Vi!lages/Blocks of the Bilaspur District by inviting application from eligible candidates of the Bilaspur District. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Rojgar Sahayak by order dated 05/09/2006 (Annexure P/1) for a period of one year i.e. 2006-07 in Nirtu-Kukda. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, in view of the order dated 20/03/2007 reservation roster has been applied for the post of Rojgar Sahayaks and the Gram Panchayat Nirtu-Kukda became independent Cluster. Subsequently, separate posts of Gram Rojgr Sahayaks have been created and as per the reservation roster, the posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. The petitioner, who is having sufficient experience, but belongs to general category, could no appiy for the post of Gram f^' •? il'-"i8 ii^ '"iwxV li^ 6; 2 Panchayat, Kukda. The respondent No.5 has been appointed and the post of Gram Panchayat-Nirtu remained vacant for the year 2008-09 for want of suitabte candidate under the Scheduled Tribe category. However, in the year 2008-09 and 2009-10, one Umashankar has been appointed. Learned counsel further submits that on account of reservation, the petitioner could not apply for the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak in spite of the fact that he is having sufficient experience and requisite qualification. The impugned action of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law. Learned counsel next submits that in respect of appointment on contract basis, the reservation policy could not be made applicable, therefore, the entire selection process is vitiated and the same deserves o be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearjng forthe State submits that at the time of publication of advertisement (Annexura P/4), the petitioner has not raised any objection. The petitioner raised Objection only after appointment of respondent No.5 as per the reservation policy and in accordance with law. After completion of selection process, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the advertisement. In view of the abovestated facts, no writ or direction can be issued against the authorities, as the seat for which the petitioner claiming appointment was meant for reserved category. There is no dispute that the petitioner belongs to unreserved category. The petitioner could not have been selected on the basis of his experience and qualification when the seat was meant for reserved categories. In all selection, whether contract or regular, when the same is under statutory provisions, the State is obliged to follow reservation policy as provided under the constitution. It is well-settled principle of law that no reserved seat can be converted to unreserved seat to ,?8>"B"^», y.^^^ '%, -a .^ 7';.:>'"y^;-. <>;;; .••^:w^^- --sr •^^^-•' ^ 8. accommodate others merely on the basis of experience and qualification. Even if there was any grievance that the seat should not have been reserved for reserved category, the petitioner ought to have challenged the same before the process of selection, not after the selection is over and respondent no.5 has already been appointed on the post. Resultantly, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Arun