HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVJSIONBENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRS SUNiL KUMAR SSNHA, J. APPELLANT Writ Appeai No. 179 of 2008 Vinod Kumar Soni, S/o. late Shri Ganesh Prasad Soni, aged about 31 years, R/o. Namnakala, Amblkapur, Distt. - Surguja (C.G.) Petitioner no.1 in writ petMon 7(: RESPONDENTS ./-" ^ Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Home Department, DX.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.). RespQifdQnt NQ.1 m writ petitson 2. The Director General, Headquarter Jall, Ralpur (C.G.) Respondent No.2 in writ petition 3. The Superintendent of Jail, CentraS Jail, Amblkapur, Distt. Surguja Respondent No.3 m wrlt petition 4. The Collector, Ambikapur, Dlstt. Surguja (C.G.) Respondent No.4 in writ petitlon "5. D'snesh Kumar Yadav, S/o. Bhagati Ram Yadav, aged about - 30 years, Viilage & Post Raikera, Tahsil Baglch, Dlstt. Jashpur(C.G.) PetMoner no.2 in writ petition 6. Krishna Kumar Rajwade, S/o. B.P. Rajwade, aged about -21 years, Namnakaia, Ambikapur Petitioner no.3 'm writ petStson 7. SaflmMalik, S/o. ShriM.M. Ahmaa, aged about 23 years, R/o. Phundurdihari Mahuapara, Ambikapur, Distt.-Surguja (C.G.) Petstioner no.4 m writ petMon ^ 8. Dinesh Kumar Chlnda, S/o. Shri Charan Singh Chsnde, aged about- 36 years, R/o. Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtan (C.G.) PetMoner no.5 in wr'it petition 9. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, S/o. Sudesh Tiwaii, aged about 29 years, R/o. Gancfhi Nagar, Ambikapur(C.G.) Petitioner no.6 in wnt petition 10. Dllip Mook (Nayak), S/o. Shri Muganrsm Naik, aged about 27 years, Wo. Bus Stand, Near Maln Post OfRce, Ambikapur (C.G.) PetWoner no.7 'm wr'it petttion 11. Brijesh Kumar Singh, S/o. Shri Sudesh Singh, aged about 28 years, R/o. Katkona, Balkunthpur, Distt.Kona (C.G.) Petitioner no.8 m writ petltion 12. Suni! Kumar Kanwar, S/o. Purushottam Singh, agedabout35 years, C/o. Jeevanrao Ragho Banspara, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Petitioner no. 9 in wr'st petition" Writ Appeal Under Section 2 of the Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (AppeaS to Divisjon Bench) Act. 2006 Present: Shri Prashant Mishra, iearned counsel for the appeilant. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, iearned Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4. Judgment ( 20th August, 2008) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Learned counsel for the parties are heard on }.A. No.02/2008, anapplication for amendment in the memo of appeal. 2. On due consideration, I.A. No.02/2008 is allowed. r- -^^s^ wg g2. ^•l" 3. By allowing I.A. No.03/2008, the amended memo of appeal is taken on record. 4. Appellant Vinod Kumar Soni has filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 28.07.2008, passed in W.P. (S) No.432/2007. 5. The learned counse! for the parties are heard on admission. 6. Appellant Vijay Kumar Soni and his 8 other co-petitioners had filed the writ petition for the foiiowing reliefs: " In view of the facts and grounds as mentioned in foregoing paragraphs, the petitioners pray for the foliowing reliefs; 7.1 This Hon'bte Court may Rindly be pieased to call for entire records pertaining to the seiection of the petitioners and the selection list which was duty pubiished by the respondents' authorities. 7.2 That; this Hon'bie Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to immedjately issue the appointment orders to the petitioners as Jai! Prahari. 7.3 That, thls Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents' authorities not to conduct fresh examination for the post of Jail Praharis at Distt. Surguja. 7.4 Any other retief(s) may also be given to the petitioners, which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 7. The petitioners; in substance were seeking a direction to the respondents to issue orders for the appointment of the petitioners as 'Jail Prahari' (Guard). ?S-;A^£^... /f:y\ \.'^/ 4 8. In the setection process held in pursuance of the advertisement dated 05.12.2005 (Annexure-P/1) as many as 34 persons were seiected for the posts of 'Jaii Prahari' (Guard) in the district of Ambikapur. Ali the nine petitioners in the writ petition were among those 34 seiected persons. The Director General (Prisons) on a thorough examination of the records of the seiection process found severa! irreguiarities in the selection process affecting the entire selection process. The Director General, therefore, vide his report dated 22.08.2006 recommended canceliation of the entire selection process in the dlstrict of Ambikapur. On the basis of the said report, the State Government vlde its order dated 27.12.2006 cancelled the seiection process he!d in the district of Ambikapur, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 05.12.2005 and direeted to initiate fresh seiectlon process. 9. The iearned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the material produced along with the return of the respondents found that the iFregularities pointed out in the report of the Director Generai were of serious nature and affected theentire seiection process and it was not possibie to isolate the beneficiaries of the irregularities. Learned Single Judge; therefore, following the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. Amrik Singh and others, reported In (2003) 10 SCC 136; Union of india and others Vs. Kali Dass Batish and another, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 779 & K. Jayamohan Vs. State of Kerala and another, |i^t%^FB8^i,.,fei»*^^,^^..^<*b^ ! ^' .-^y:-^\ -"1*^ /'s ^ E'^^ ^ reported in AIR 1997 SC 2619, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 28.07.2008. 10. Shri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant vehementiy argued that the iearned Singie Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition and holding that the irregularities pointed out in the report of the Director Generai (Prisons) affected the entlre selection process, whereas in fact the irregularities were confined to 13 candidates only out ofthe 34 candidates selected. 11. On a perusal of the report of the Director Generai (Prisons), we find that the Irregularitjes pointed out in paras 10 to 15 are not only of serious nature, but these irregularities affected the entire seiection process and create serious doubts about the selection of the candidates on merits a!one, 12. On due consideration of the submissions of iearned counsei for the parties, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which may warrant interference in thiswrit appeaj. 13. The writ appeai, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu