i^i ^to^ (1) ^ c^i ^r^r IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) W.P. (S) N0. c/<'f^/2008 PETITIONER ^ ^^ ^' ...••^^<^...-"" ^^y ^•'^•-^^ ^yy ^"•" RESPONDENTS Arvind Shrivastava, Aged about 31 years, S/o Shri Shivmurat Lal Shrivastava, Occupation-Service, Data Entry Computer Operator in Forest Division, Manendrgarh, R/o Manendragarh, District-Korea (C.G.) VERSUS :1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawarn Raipur (C.G.) 2. ' Conservator of Forest, Sarguja Forest Division, Ambikapur, DJstrict-Sarguja (C.G.) 3. Divisional Forest Officer, Korea, Forest Division Baikunthpur, ^ District-Korea (C.G.) 4. Sandeep KumarPathak, S/o G.P. Pathak, Aged about 27 years, Data Entry Computer Operator, Korea, Forest Division Baikunthpur, District-Korea (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. rr AF/^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4075 of2008 PETITIONER : Arvind Shrivastava. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 1 to 3. Shri Majid Ali, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 20th day of April, 2010) 1. By this petition^ the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order dated 18.7.2008 (Annexure P/l) whereby the respondent No. 4 has been selected and appointed on the post ofData Entry Computer Operator on contract basis by the Divisional Forest Officer, Koria Forest Division, Baiknnthpur. 2. The sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been working as Data Entry Computer Operator for the last 9 years, on contract basis. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to reappointment on.the post on the basis of letter dated 01.04.2008 (Armexure P/2) of Conser/ator of Forest, Surguja Forest Circle, Ambikapur, wherein it is clearly prescribed that preference may be given to the employees who have worked for more than 5 years. It is further contended that the respondent No. 4 has worked only for two years. Thus, the impugned order may be quashed and the petitioner^ having the maximum experience on the post, may be given appomtment. 3. Shri Roy, leamed Panel Lawyer appearmg for the State/respondents 1 to 3, submits that appointment'ofData Entry Computer Operator is made on the basis of selection. Preference of experience is given after selection on the basis of tests as required. Admittedly^ the petitioner in the selection process obtained 83 marks and the respondent No. 4 obtained 130 marks^ which is evident from Annexure R/4. Thus, the •^' u6 ^o— question of granting of preference to the petitioner does not arise as in the selection process, the respondent No. 4 stands on a better footing. 4. Shri Majid Ali, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 adopts the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3 and submits that the selection ofrespondent No. 4 on merit cannot be ignored on account ofthe experience gained by the petitioner. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident from the select list annexed as Annexure R/4 that the performance of the petitioner in the written test, skill test and inter^iew was inferior to that of the respondent No. 4 as the respondent No. 4 has obtained 130 marks as against 83 marks obtained by the petitioner. So far as weightage/ preference on the basis of experience is concerned, that admittedly comes after selection process. In the selection process, the performance ofthe respondent No. 4 is far superior to that ofthepetitioner. Thus, the preference ofhis experience has rightly not been granted to him and the petitioner has been placed in the waiting list. 6. It is not the case ofthe petitioner that there is any statutory prescription or notification which entitles the petitioner to have marks or weightage on the basis of his experience of work on contract basis on the post of Data Entry Computer Operator. Annexure P/2 is a letter written by one officer to another officer which has no foundation and that cannot be held as binding as the same appears to be contrary to the selection scheme. 7. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. 8. No order asto costs. ^ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge