0r^\ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l WRIT APPEAL N0. \ S3. OF 2009 (D.B.)! APPELLANT . : S,<.S-for3^s/' ^ G~) ..•/^ ./^ ^-< w7-''' c?^.^-sfev"..- { )'< ~ .^7 ' \''ff^ .'*t ""s"' . v^y^^'"" •^ RESPONDNETS : 1- \y- ^'^ 1» fc »v . f .•.•i:"////^' s^y ^ 2. *^§unil Kuraar S/o Purushottam, aged about 24 years, at present working as Silai Prashikshak, in Central Jail, Arabikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). Resident of C/o Shri B. K. Dwivedi, Gali No. 4, Shankar Nagar, Durg (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). The Inspector General Jail, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). Bhupendra Kumar Devangan S/o Dashrath lal, R/o Near Sonika Shrinagar, Satyanarayan Mandir, Bramhanpara, Raipur (C.G.). 4. i-^T'Ku. Manju Singh D/o Shri P. L. Singh, aged about 32 years, R/o Behind Indira School Madhuban Road, Bilaspur (C.G.j. ^-——/:e^~M«<"^ WRIT APPEALUNDER SECTION 2 OP THE CHHAmSGARH HIGH COURT (APPEALTO DIVISION BENCH) ACT,2006 HiQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHiRENDRA MISHRA, & HON'BLESHRJR.N.CHANDRAKAR.JJ <^ WritApoealNo.133 of20Q9 SunH Kumar Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others Apfieiiants Respondents WritAooealNo.224 of 2009 State of Chhattisgarh and another Ku. Manju Singh and others Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge 3 IA^Z-CA— <s Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^ POST FOR JUDGMENT ON K NOVEMBER,20Q9 7 ^^ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge 7*. (?2^; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR 0.8. HON'BLE SHRi DHIRENDRA MISHRA. & SLE Writ Aopeal No.133 of 2003 Sunii Kumar S./o Purushottam, aged about 24 years, at present working as Siias Prashikshak, in Centrai Jain, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) Resldent of C/o Shri BK Dffivedi, Ga!i No.4, Shankar Nagar, Durg (CG) Stete of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Homs Departmsnt, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The inspector Genera! Jaii, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) ihupendra Kumar Dewangan S/o Dashrath Lal, R/o Near Sonika Shrinagar, Satyanarayan Mandir, Bramhanpara, Raipur (CG) „. f-AW^ BifiililiSit ^^ 2. 3. Manju Singh D/o Shri P.L. Singh, aged about 32 years, R/o Behind Indjra Schoo' Road, Biiaspur (CG) Petitioner mtAooealNo.224 of 2009 State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Home Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The inspector Generai Jaii, Chhattisgarh, District Raipur (CG) Ku. Manju Singh, D/o Shrl PL Singh, aged about 32 years, R/o Bshind indira School, Madhuban Road, Bilaspur(CG) Petitioner Bhupendra Kumar Dewangan S/o Dashrath Lal, R/o Near Sonika Shrinsgar, Satyanarayan Mandir, iramhanpara, Raipur (CG) Respondent No.3 Suni! Kumar, S/o Purushottam, Aged about 24 years, presenUy Viforking as Siiai Prashikshak, R/o C/o Shri BK Dwivedi, Gal! No.4, Shankar Nagar, Durg (CG) ~ Mr. Ma'ay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel for appeilant Sunli Kumar. Mr. UNS Deo, Govt. Advocate for She State. Miss Farah Minhaj, counsel for respondent Bhupendra Kumar Dewangan. Mr. Rakesh Pandey, counsei for respondent Ku. wlanju Singh. 1 •JS JUDGMENT |De!ivered onj^' November, »il!8«, PerDhi/endra Mishra^J 01. Writ Appeal No.133/09 preferred by appellanfrespondent No.4 and Writ Appeal No.224/09 preferred by appetlants/respondents No. 1 & 2, are being disposed of by this common judgment as the appellants herein have impugned the legailty, validity and correctnsss of the impugned order dated 22 Apri!, 2009 passed in W.P.(s)No.5007/08, whereby the aforesaid petition preferred by respondent-Ku. Manju Singh has been aliowed and it has been heid that she is entitled to be appointed in place of respondent- Sunil Kumar. (Parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their descnption before the writ Court for the sake of convenience.) 02. Briefiy stated, facts as projected from the impugned order are that applications were invited for appointment on the post of Siiai Prashikshak. As per advertisement, one seat was available in unreserved category for man and one for woman candidate. Grievance of the petitioner in the writ petstlon was that she being a woman candidate was entitled for appointment against the post reserved for woman, however, respondents No, 1 & 2 have appointed respondent No.3 Bhupendra Kumar Dewangan against one post of unreserved category for male candidate and respondent No. 4 Sunil Kumar against the post reserved for a woman candidate under the unreserved category. Tftus, appointment of respondent No.4 is bad and contrary to the conditsons of the advertisement and the same defeats the purpose of reservation for woman candidate. 03. Respondents No. 1 & 2 in their counter affidavit submitted that as per criteria fixed by the Selectlon Committee, 25 marks were fixed for practicai examination and 25 marks for interview and out of total 50 marks, 25 marks were fixed as minimum qualsfysng/passing marks for appointment on the post of Siiai Prashikshak. Th'e petitioner obtained 8 marks in practical examlnation and 8 marks in ora! interview and thus, she did not obtain the minimum qualitying marks and therefore, she could not be selected. 04. Respondent No.4, in his separate return, took a simllar defence as that of respondents No. 1 & 2. He also contended that after he liBi iiH i submitted appiication for appointment along with other candidates, al! the candidates were called for written examinatien and thereafter, interwew. The petitioner obtained only 16 marks out of tota! 50 marks, whereas respondent No.3 obtained 32 marks snd respondent No.4 secured 31 marks. Since the petitioner obtained less than quaiifying marks i.e. 25, she couid not be setected and respondents No. 3 & 4 were appointed as per Clause 9 of the 05. Mr. U.N.S. Deo, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State, submitted that the Director General (Prison) constituted a Three Members Selection Committee with DIG (Prison) as the President. After receiving the applications of the candidates, selectron process was commenced. Totai 50 marks, 25 marks for practica! examination & 25 for inten/iew, were fixed. The minimum 25 marks . were required to be secured for being selected. Since the petitioner secured oniy 16 marks i.e. 8 out of 25 marks sn practical examination and 8 out of 25 in intennew, she dld not qualify. Whereas respondent No.3-Bhupendra Kumar Dewangan obtained 32 marks and respondent No.4-Sunil Kumar obtained 31 marks. Refemng to CIause 9 of the advertisement, it was argued that appointment on the post of Silai Prashikshak would be governed by Chhattisgarh Civii Sewa (Mahilaon Ki Niyukti Hetu Vishesh Upbandh) Niyam, 1997 (in short "the Rutes, 1997"), which specjficaily provide that if no suitable woman candidate is avaiSable in seiection process, then the vacant post wouid not be carried forward and it would be fiiled up by male candidate. 06. i'vl!-. Maiay Kumar Bhaduri, iearned counse! for appeliant-Sunil Kumar, argued that petitioner Ku. Manju Singh did not obtain the minimum qualifying marks as fixed by the Selection Committee for appointment. Since no eligible woman candidate was availabie for appointment against the post reserved for woman, respondent No.4-Sunii Kumar was given appointment on the basis of hls performance in the wntten examination and oral interview, which is perm'ssibie as per the Rules, 1997. The djrection to appoint the petitloner in place of respondent No.4 is not permissjble under the !aw, particulariy when, apart from the petitioner, other woman 9 A §tl ^^ candidates aiso applied for the same post and particlpate 'n the setectlon process. 07. We have heard tearned counsej for the parties and perused the impugned order. 08. From perusal of the advertisement of Annexure P/2, it is c!ear that out of two posts advertlsed under unreserved category of Siiai Prashiksha, one post was for man and other for woman candldate. Educationai qualjfication and other eHgibility have been given in Para-5 of the advertisement. Ciaus® 9 of the advertisement mentions that provision of reservatfon for woman as per theRutes, 1997 wouid be made. if the post reserved for woman remains vacant on account of absence of woman applicant, in that case, the same may be filied in from man candidate of the same category. The advertisement does not mention that the candldate must secure minimum 25 marks out of 50 marks to be awarded in practteal examinafion and ora! interview to be conducted by the Seiection Committee for becoming eiigibie for appointment. Thus, in view of the fact that 12 woman candidates appHed for the post, inciudjng petitioner Ku. Manju Singh, and aiso considering that the advertisement does not have any such condition of obtaining minimum qualifymg marks in the practteai examination and orai interview, we are ofthe opinion thatthe appointment ofrespondent No.4-Sunil Kumar against the vacancy resen/ed for woman, has rightly been set aside by the learned Single Judge and to thst extent, the impugned order does not call for any interference. However, considering the fact that the petitioner and other 1 1 woman candidates aiso applied for th® advertised post and participated in the seiection process, it would have been appropriate to direct the respondents No. 1 & 2 to appoint suitabte woman candi'date from amongst the woman candidates, who partteipated in the selection process, according to their performance in the practica! exan-ilnation and orai interview, instead of issuing di'rectson to appoint petitioner Ku. Manju Singh in place of respondent No.4 SuniS Kumar. 09. in the result, (a) Writ Appea! No.133/09 preferred by appeltant-Sunit Kumar, being without substance, is dismresed. 9 'i %m 's, Writ Appea! No.224/09 preferred by the State/respondents No.1 & 2 is partly ailowed. State/respondents No. 1 & 2 are directed to appoint suitable woman candidate from amongst the woman candidates, who participated m the setection process, according to their performance in the practical examination and oral interview. No order as to costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge --—<•>-. Sd/- R-N. Chandrafear Judge n— —^ f^';«! ¥ ^ isiiniaHsiiii;