^^ ^L •',.**••• v. '-t.i.ifU .^..^•-^ :•-.•-'"••'; ( IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASFUR WRIT PETITION (Sl No. .S&S' 12009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^1^< .v?^>- .ft^^ "y..:..; Noorjahan D/o Hamid Ali, aged about 22 years, R/o Village- Khedamara, P.S. - Jamul, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Town Administration 8s Development Department, D.K.S, Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bhilai Distt,- Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TF ^\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (Sl No. 384 of2009 Petitioner Mahjbeen Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & another And W.P.(S) Nos. 385, 418, 417 and 419 of 2009. Post for Judgment & Order on this Y^Say of October, 2009. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILA^PUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 384 of 2009 PETITIONER Mahjbeen VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh 85 another And W.P.(S) Nos. 385, 418, 417 and 419 of 2009. WRIT PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Ms Meena Shastri, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No. 1/8tate. Shri H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Ms Meera Jayaswal and Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocates for the respondent No.2. JUDGMENT fic ORDER (Passed on this »+^day of October, 2009) The aforementioned five writ petitions involve common question of facts and law, asto whether, the posts of Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade -III, once advertised on 11.10.2007, can be converted into other categories in subsequent advertisement on 23.8.2008. Therefore, all the Writ Petitions (S) No. 384, 385, 418, 417 and 419 of 2009 are being disposed of by this common order. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that earlier the respondent/Corporation issued an advertiseinent dated 11.10.2007 (Annexure P/l in WP(S) No. 384/2009) for recruitment of various posts, including eight posts of Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, which were described, as under : (i) Two posts - unreser^ed ( Ex-Serviceman ) (ii) One post - unreserved (physically disabled) (iii) Two posts - Scheduled Caste (iv) Three posts - Scheduled Tribe ^ Pursuant to the above advertisement dated 11.10.2007 the petitioners, having fulfilled the required qualifications submitted their applications for appointment on the posts of Urdu Shiksha Karmis Grade -III, Urdu subject. 3. The petitioner in (Mahjbeen) in W.P.(S) No. 384/2009 submitted her application (Annexure P/5) under general category. The petitioner (Noorjahan) in W.P.(S) No. 385/2009, being 40% physically disabled, submitted her application (Annexure P/7) under general categoiy for disabled person. The petitioner (Julekha Begum) in W.P.(S) No. 418/2009 submitted her application (Annexure P/8) under general category. The petitioner (Nazrana Tabassum) in W.P.(S) No. 417/2009 submitted her application (Annexure P/4) under general categoiy. The petitioner (Naseem Begum Qureshi) in W.P.(S) No. 419/2009 submitted her application (Annexure P/4) under general category. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners were kept waiting for appointment letter or call letter for inter^iew etc. but a subsequent advertisement was issued on 23.8.2008 (Annexure P/6 in WP(S) No. 384/2009) for recruitment of eight posts of Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, which were described as under: (i) Three posts - Free [^R!) (unreseryed). (ii) Two posts - women (unreserved) (iii) One post - Free (^T) (O.B.C.) (iv) One post - women (O.B.C.) (v) One post - Physically disabled person (O.B.C.) ^- It was next submitted that when the petitioners sought information about the fate of their applications, submitted by them pursuant to the earlier advertisement dated 11.10.2007; it was informed by the respondent No.2 that the petitioners had applied as General Category Candidates and the advertised posts were not meant for recruitment from the general candidates. As no candidates were found suitable, no appointments were made. Thereafter, the petitioners have made representations but of no avail. Thus, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions. Ms Meena Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that as per the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Municipality Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998 (for short 'the Rules, 1998), if ex-soldier candidate is not available, the post should be allotted among concerned column candidates. She further submitted that it is evident from the order dated 2.9.1998 (Annexure P/8 in WP(S) No. 384/2009) that the Govemment has decided that there should be no separate number of posts of Urdu Shiksha Karmis under reserved categories, instead the number of posts of Urdu Shiksha Karmis be merged with the other posts of Shiksha Karmis in such a manner that in totality there will be no scarcity in the number of posts of reserved categories ( W^T ^TRFT STCT ^PJN f^PTT TPTT t f^ ^ RlS1l<frPf^T ^ f^T? ^8T^ ^ ^TRR^T q^¥ ^ 7T°PfT ^T ^t vTT? ^f^ ^^ f^TSTT^ q¥ ^ TT?T ^t Rl^l^M^T ^ TRt ^ ^HTST <HP*lRld ^^ STRf^T ^Tft ^ ^T ^t TBT::IT ^T ^WR ^t ufP? f^» ^WV "^T ^ 3TRRRT ^ ^ XRt' ^' ^ft ^T 3TTq ). Thus, the action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions <fc7 8. of law and the instructions issued by the State Govemment on the subject. Leamed Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/Corporation would submit that the earlier advertisement dated 11.10.2007 was not acted upon by the respondent/Corporation, as the eight posts of Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade-III were not advertised for the general categoiy candidates and as such, no appointment was made. Thereafter, subsequent advertisement was issued on 23.8.2008 for recruitment of eight posts of Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. Process for recruitment is undergoing, thus the petitions are premature and liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel would further submit that in the year 2005, 19 posts of Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade-III were advertised vide advertisement dated 16.5.2005 (Annexure R-2/1), the reservation in which were described vide corrigendum dated 17.5.2005 (Annexure R-2/1), as under: (i) Two posts - Scheduled Caste. (ii) Three posts - Scheduled Tribe. (iii) Three posts - O.B.C. (iv) Eleven posts - unreserved ( 1 women, 2 Ex- serviceman, and 1 disabled person) Learned counsel would further submit that pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.5.2005 vide order dated 3.10.2007 14 persons were appointed and by subsequent order dated 15.11.2007 two persons were appointed. In the present case there is no violation of the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1998. 5'n ^ 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. Rule 5 of the Rules 1998 provides for methods of selection and recruitment. Sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1998 are relevant in the case on hand, which are reproduced herein below : <<(4) Posts of direct recruitment of Shiksha Karmis shall be reserved for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyobaon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994(No. 21 of 1994). (5) Posts shall be reserved for candidates belonging to women, disabled persons, Ex-Servicemen and such other classes according to the rules and instructions of the State Governnient: {Provided that if, after sending the copy of the advertisement issued for the appointment of Shiksha Karmi, showing the details of the posts reserved for Ex-Serviceman, to the District Employment Exchange, District Ex-Serviceman Welfare Board and Director General of Rehabilitation, the Ex- Serviceman are not available for the posts reserved for Ex- Ser^iceman and the posts remain vacant, the vacant posts shall be filled in from amongst the candidates belonging to the relevant category.} 11. It is clear from the advertisement dated 11.10.2007 that 8 posts of Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade-III were advertised, out of which under unreserved categoiy, 2 posts were for ex-serviceman and 1 post was for physically disabled person. Under reserved categories 2 posts were meant for Scheduled Caste category and 3 posts for Scheduled Tribe. Thus, as per the advertisement, only the petitioner (Noorjahan) in W.P.(S) No. 385/2009, who being 40% physically disabled, submitted her application under general category for disabled person may have grievance. 12. It is further clear from the subsequent advertisement dated 23.8.2008 that total 8 posts of Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade-III were advertised out of which under the unreserved category 3 posts are kept free {'^f ) and 2 posts are for women candidate. Under the reserved category i.e. O.B.C., 1 post is free (^RT), 1 is for woman and 1 for physically disabled person. 13. Thus, it is apparent that in the subsequent advertisement there is no place for ex-serviceman (2 posts) and physically disabled person (1 post) under unreserved category. Likewise, there is no place for Scheduled Caste (2 posts) and Scheduled Tribe (3 posts). 14. The question raised in the present petitions is asto what happened to 5 reserved seats advertised in the notification dated 11.10.2007 (Annexure - P/l) in subsequent notification dated 23.08.2008 (Annexure - P/6), as the earlier advertisement was cancelled on account of the fact that suitable candidates were not available for appointment, as is evident from memo dated 25.08.2008 (Annexure - P/7). 15. The respondent has not adverted to the main question in its return dated 28.03.2009 except that the process of selection pursuant to memo dated 25.08.2008 is under consideration. 16. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioners that the circular dated 02.09.1998 (Annexure - P/8) provides for over all reservation in the cadre of Shiksha Karmis, there is no separate reservation for Urdu Shiksha Karmis. l^»l"N^ Thakur/ 17. The appointments made pursuant to the earlier notifications dated 17.05.2005 and 19.05.2005 are of no relevance in the present dispute, as the subsequent notification dated 23.08.2008 (Annexure - P/6) does not provide for reservation of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. In the light of the earlier circular dated 02.09.1998, it cannot be held that the reservation should be specifically provided in case of Urdu Shiksha Karmis. If the sufficient reservations have been provided in the cadre of Shiksha Karmis, contemplated in the subsequent notification dated 23.08.2008, it cannot be held that not providing reservation in Urdu category is bad in law and unconstitutional. The petitioners have neither challenged nor pleaded that there was no sufficient representation in the appointment of contract Shiksha Karmis in the advertisement dated 23.08.2008. 18. In such an event, looking from all angles, this Court is not inclined to hold that the advertisement dated 23.08.2008 is arbitrary and unconstitutional. Since the selection process, pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.10.2007, has been cancelled on account ofwant of suitable candidates, no writ can be issued directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners against the post of Urdu Shiksha Karmis Grade ~ III. 19. In the result and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petitions are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. ——- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge