a D? (WM 4 £3; . mm @{g‘mm (F‘Mzj/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 6/ y? of 2008 PETITIONER Shrikant Haldar S/o. Late Ajit Haldar, aged about 32 years, R/o P.V.—82, Village —. Vijaynagar, P.O. — Bande, Tahsil — Pakhanjur, District — Kanker (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretalyf Health_ Department, D.K.S. Bhawan,Raipur(C.G.) r 2. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, District — North Bastar Kanker (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ‘ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENTS 1. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 6177of 2008 PETITIONER Shrikant Haldar VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and another K Shrl Goutam Bhadun counsel for the petitioner te V Shrl V V S Moorthy Dy A G for the respondents/Sta 1 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOFINDIA ORDER (06.09.2010) This petition assaiis the order dated 13.10.2008 (Annexure P—1 j passed by respondent No.2 cancelling the appointment ofthe petitionelf i . '1: z “j oni the post of Ward Boy (Class IV post) which was made against the un—? eserved category. ‘ , i ‘ ‘ . if II ' 2 .‘ Case ofthe petitioner is that vide order dated 11.7.2003 (Annexure“ I' P42) he was appointed as Ward Boy by Jila Panchayat, North Bastari Kanker in the Primary Health Centre, initially for a period of two years‘a ‘ by virtue of said order he continued on the said post till 10.7.2005. Vi order dated 12.5.2005 (Annexure P—4) the services of the petitioner we‘rd. extended for one more year. Vide order dated 3.2.2007 (Annexure P—5) ‘ his services were again extended for one more year. Vide order dated 6.7.2007 (Annexure P—6) his salary was increased and his services Werdil extended for one more year i.e. till 5.7.2008. According to the case ofthe l . etitioner on 7 1 2008 an advertisement (Annexure P 7) was issued by respondent No 2 for Six posts of Ward Boy I e three for scheduled tribei ne for scheduled caste one for OBC and one for General category. o ‘ Petitioner submitted his application form along With all the appomtme letters, registration card of employment exchange, domicile certificatel mark sheets and the experience certificate dated 12.1.2008 (Annexure Pi 11). According to him, from the very beginning some mischief was playedf a9 ainst the petitioner and for that reason only it was disclosed byj IV r I I n d” I ‘ p n ’1”- l respondent No.2 that application form and relevant documents of theij ‘ I e’ititioner have not been received by it. However, the petitioner obtaine .p ] ‘ ' , H. the cértificates from the Department of Posts, Kanker on 6.2.2008 aI .2.2008 showing the fact that application form of the petitioner was d 2)l dH.‘:‘ l posting at Primary Health Centre Badagaon After receivmg the above ‘ 'g appomtment order when the petitioner had gone to Jom the post he wag not permitted to do so on the pretext that as some unsuccessful ‘ enquiry candidates was had going made to a complalnt be conducted against in the the entire matter. selectlon However process, afte a ‘ completion of enqUiry on 1 10 2008 amended order was issued in favo of the petitioner appomting him on the same post and in the same place Vide (Annexure P 14) Pursuant to the said appomtment order the petitioner gave his joining on 10 10 2008 Vide (Annexure P—15) It is the case of the petitioner that all of a sudden the order impugned dated ‘ ‘ 13 102008 (Annexure P 1) has been issued mentioning in it that OW account of clerical error in the merit list against the unreserved post the petitioner has been wrongly shown to be selected and has been issued : the appomtment order and therefore the said appomtment is cancelled. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits. that this cancellation order h been issued at the behest of some powerful persons and though the petitioner is meritorious he has not been awarded full marks on the baSis of his experience certificate. .He submits that some manipulation has been done in his original record and the document of Annexure (R 2) ha been inserted showmg his experience from May 2005 He submits that ‘ this document of Annexure R2 has never been submitted by the l petitioner but has been made part of the record for the reasons bes known to the respondents He submits that the petitioner had filed all hij, { i awarding him 25 marks for his experience he has been awarded only 01‘ ' 7 ol deliveredin the office of respondent No.2 on 18.1 .2008 (Annexure P-1 Further case of the petitioner is that he had given all the details ‘t reSpondent No.2 and ultimately on 3.5.2008 an order (Annexure P-13‘)l was issued by respondent No2 appointing the petitioner and one v l Pushkar Sinha on the post of Ward Boy and the petitioner was given i r 3 K . l ‘, j 1 h a .- u ‘ 8 ‘ ‘ h ‘ L ’- ‘ 19 marks just to ensure his elimination from the merit list. He submits t after fiiing of return the petitioner has obtained the copy of the form fiiiedg p by him (Annexure P-22) under the Right to Information Act and fro the said document it is clear that ail the appointment orders have bee jg. filed along with the certificates submitted by the petitioner along With his forfm but the experience certificate has been replaced by a forged]: ; ocument (Annexure R—2). It is argued that if 20 additional marks a‘rd i\/1en to the petitioner on the basis of his experience, his total markj ould come to’78 87 and thus the petitioner would be at S No 1 in 1t years he Is not a fool that he WIII not submit his experience certificatd ‘ d vg l; h merit list It is argued that once the petitioner has experience of fiv ' before the competent authority for the entire, five years. It is submitted _ hat on account of interim order passed by this Court on 6.11.2008, on$ ‘ postof Ward Boy of General Category has been kept vacant and therefore even without disturbing the entire selection, the petitioner cant ‘- ’ e appointed on the post of Ward Boy. .i . Replying to the averments made by the counsel for the petitioner’; is submitted by the counsel for the respondents/State that for the reaso best known to the petitioner, he had not sUbmitted the experien certificates of five years and submitted only one certificate (Annexure RI 2) showmg his experience of one year only and therefore the selection committee has rightly granted five marks to him and as he does not comet ‘ in the merit list, his appomtment has rightly been cancelled. He submits ‘ ‘ that on the baSis of addition of five marks of experience total markd gawarded to him would come to 58 87 whereas there are other candidates ‘fwho have secured 68 55 and 68 38 marks and thus they are above th petitioner I. r '5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the original reco produced by the counsel for the respondents/State 6. From the application form filled up by the petitioner (Annexure P1 22) it is apparent that the petitioner has submitted all his appointmen orders showmg that he has worked as Ward Boy right from 11 7 2003 ti _ lthe year 2008 It is not disputed by the State counsel that the selection committee has fixed the criteria for awarding five marks for experience for ha i u e t b ‘ V 4 i% n c _£/P “ iw, ha“ been brought on record at such a belated stage and if this document ever issued to the petitioner, he could have submitted the same al with the form itself. Annexure R-2 appears to be a vague certifica i "‘ onjeyear. Record also shows that the petitioner has filed ali‘th appointment orders (four in number) right from the year 2003 shoW that he worked as Ward Boy for about five years. Even if this perio taken as 4 and 1/2 years, the petitioner is entitled for being awarde marks towards his experience in stead of O5 and if 15 additionai mar are counted, the total marks in his favour come to 73.87 and in these ‘ circumstances he would automatically be placed at S.No. 1 in the merit” list. The next two candidates namely Pushkar Sinha and Raghveetj‘ 1 . Prasad Baghei have secured 68.55 and 68.30 marks respectively. So fari" as, the contention of the State counsel that the petitioner has submitte onily experience certificate annexure R—2 along with his application form} n is ‘concerned, it is difficult to understand as to why the said document ‘ ‘ o’n ’ e showing that he has worked only from May ‘2005 at Primary HealtHw., Centre Kapsi District Bastar whereas the petitioner has filed the document received by him under the Right to information Act (Annexure P 29) showmg that he has never worked at Primary Health Centre KapsH W ‘ ii “ t r ‘ ‘ t 7. From the documents submitted by the petitioner it is evident that he It is not the case of the petitioner that he has ever worked at Primar Health Centre, Kapsi but his case is that he worked as .Ward Boy a Badagaon. Thus the entire stand taken by the respondents/State appea o be doubtful. had l the experience of more than 4 years and thus he is entitled for a ‘ east 20 marks on the head of experience and if these 20 marks ar" added the total would come to 73 87 marks ln this view ofthe mater it i ‘ " apparent that cancellation order (Annexure P 1) of the appomtment ofthe ‘ petitioner being based only on surmises and conjectures is liable to be uashed and it is quashed accordingly. As one post of Ward Boy GeneralCategory is already lying vacant the respondents are directedif "q o 3 t r take appropriate steps immediately m accordance With law , Sdl . Prihnker D‘wake!‘ I i d dr' k ( ‘ y ‘vi t‘. ‘ . . -