® 6’ [Q \0 @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W P NO {£51} /2004// PETITIONER Meghraj Dewangan Aged about 20 years S/O Shri Nandkumar Dewangan Ward No. 8 Rani Road, Champa District Janjgir— Champa (Chhattisgarh) ' VERSUS RESPONDENTS l. State of Chhattisgarh Through te Secretary Depattment of Industries/ Rural Industries, D.K.S; Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Director Gramodyog Sanchalnalya (Handloom), Sonakhan Bhawan, Ring Road, Raipur (Chhattisgath) 2 PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE,“ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ' FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR 'OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS : - 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As stated above in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: h 1§H £QU§T OF JUDICATURE AT EILA5¥NJRI €HHATTE5GAR§1 H § Wri? Pawizm No.1$§9 of 2604 Meghmj Dewmgan - Versug - STa-‘re of Chhaffisgarh & ami'har PosT FOR ORDEQ ON/zMJt/Ly, 2004 Sd/— L.C.BHADOO Judge /M.7.2oo4 HE§H £OU§T $F JUDECA'EURE AT §ELA$PUR CHHATTI$€7ARE I ‘ Wri‘f Pefi'h‘on Na. 135? 0f 2004 Megh raj Dewangan - Versus - SféTe of Chha‘h‘isgawh & ano‘rhar Presem: n Mr. Kanak ’i'iwcar’i, A¢vocafe: Mr. U.N.S. Dec, 60W. Advoca‘fe: For The pe‘H‘h’oner. For The Smfe/respandems. (Pa3$ed on n.“ July, 2004 As 2- er LC. $hac§aa J. By This pe‘h'fion Wed under Ar‘ricle 226 of The Cons‘rifuféon of India, fhe pefifioner has chad lemged The iegaliw, cerrecmess cf ?he acfion of The respondanfs whereb ow him To appear in fhe inferview for sei fer 16-6-2004 has bean Turned do (2) The foci‘s iéading ‘io .Tiiiing of fhis pe‘iifion, as meniioned in issued on odver'i'isamen‘r invh‘ihg firs? year of ihree years course in ihe which was 1'o commehce from 9f” adveri‘isemem :‘he pe‘ih‘ioner bei pe'fi‘iioher ii i'e'i'ier‘ on ei‘i’er he was required vafidi’ry, propriefy and ' y The peh‘i’ioher's reques? To ah Handioom Technoiogy Course cf action in 'ihr‘ez year-s Wri. pa‘ii‘iion gre ihoi ihe respondem‘i No.2 appiicafions from suii’obie candidafes iafes‘r by 8-6-20Cl? for admission To ‘ ssubjec’r of Hondioom Techhoiogy, July 2004. In pursuance of iiwe said :19 quoiified appiied for ”the said course. The was waifihg for inferiviaw and he received inferview m 16-64004 of 2 pm ‘oy post As per ihe imerview caii i “f0. appear in The office of respmdem‘ No.2, before The Ehierview Board on \ \\L / ) i6’6—2004 a? i1 am. As ‘rhe peTi‘?ioner received fhe inferv§ew ca” la‘h‘er mL 2 pm, ?herefore, if was noT pcssibie for him 1’0 appear before f‘ne Imerview 30ard a? 11 am. i§ccordingly, #12 pe‘fi‘?ionar sen? a communica?ion *rhrough fax To responder}? No.2 a‘i’ 2:30 pm reques?ing fherein 'r’a cal! him for imerviaw on a fufure dam and he also sen? a leTTer +0 respondem Na2 mismg his grievances. Eui‘, f‘ne reques‘i of The peTi?ioner was mi acceded by reeponcienf No.2 on ’rhe gmund i'ha‘r, by The fime ‘rhe requesT of fhe peiiiioner was received Through fax, The im’e‘rview was aireaciy over. (3) The pe‘rh‘ianer's further case is Thai The career of The pefi’rioner- was ruihec} and jeopardized for no fauh‘ on his paw. OUT of four seiecfed candida’res one candide‘i’e was aiready over age and one candidate was seiecfed from hon-weaver family, who could nof be given preference in accordance wi‘r‘n “rhe rules made by fhe respondenf No.1. The pefirioner being qualified for fhe said seiecfion is a bonafide residem‘ of The $¢afe of ' Chhaei‘isgarh and aiso beiongs fo The weaver communify, as also is more academically qualified in comparison 'lo The cana‘icla’res selecl'ea‘. The responden‘l’s were obliged ‘ro send informa‘rion/oommunica‘riom i‘o ‘lhe candidafes by regisfered posT under some acknowledgemen’x” am} ‘rhe same having no? been adop‘recl; fhe communicafion was éelibera‘red on malafides 'agains'l The pe’ih‘ioner so Tho? he being more qualified may no? be able f0 awena *rhe inferview. Gn accounf of respondenfs' negligence The peTiTioner has suffered an irreparable loss and The righT of The pe’riTioner- To be selecfed for The aforesaid course is inTegraily connecfea‘ wiTh Arficles 14 and 21 of The ConsTiTuTion of Endia and in The given facfs and circumsTances for it no faulT of The peTiTiOher, he cannoT be punished by The responden’re. UlTimaTely, if has been prayed ThaT a wriT of cerTiorari be issued for quashing The selecTion made by The respondenfs for The aforesaid 3 years course of Handloom Technology and wriT of mandamus be issued for direcfing The respondenTs To call The peTiTioner for inTerview. (4) Re‘mrn has been f§1e& 0n beha!f of The. respondan‘rs, in which, issucmca af advem‘isemem for invi'ring applica’rivns and raceiv'mg of fhe appiicmicn m‘ {rhg pafificmr is admiffad and H' has fdwher been man’riongé Tha? 'm a” 11 appEica’riovxs were recaived %nc!uding ’rhe pei‘i’a‘ioner‘ The. applica’fions wera scrufmized arid m a“ 9 candidafes inciuding fine pe’rh‘iomr were ShorT-3isfed for inferview. T‘ne inferview iefmrs were dispa‘rched cm 11-6—2QO4 by speed posfu‘fhe mos? efficia‘n’r and re§§ab!e way by which The: mmidams couid hava {36621 c‘ailed for imam/Sew. [$3 '?h§£ wag, i’he omly reiiabk mode far im'ima’rmg fhe cmdidm‘es ’ro be miled fa? in’rewiew aspecéa!!y m View of ‘x‘ha (zircumsfanses fhaf wane 0f The cmdidwes who had appiégad had my E-Ma§! addre3s or woulc§ be axpecfed To access W8 Em‘emm $0 as ’ro be ihformed. As is fhe assurance given by Speed Pos‘r made of service in fhe Depar$manf of ?os1‘ (£2 Tekgmph fhaf dalivery, if sem‘, Through Eyed Pcsf mode wnuld be effac‘red wiirhin <1 period of 3 days anywhare in Thz aoun‘rry and, f‘ner'efore, as would b2 reaso’mbb/ expecfad if was expected by ‘r'ne answering respondenfs Thu'r a” ’rhe sekcfed ccmdida‘res wQaé. for inmrview would ba imimafzd wal! before 16—6u2004 on which dam Tha Ixmarview was “r0 be had. (5) Hawever, due ‘m bpse on The par? of much Toufed qu§ck made cf spaed posT $ervica, an The evamfu} dafa of inferviaw anfy 6 cwd§dafe$ veporfed om of 9 candidafes called for inferview. As scheduled, fhe procass ef l’m‘arview sfar‘fed af 11 am 3m i6u6-2004 and after mfervlewing all The 6 cardidm‘es who ’md appeared for mferview, im‘erview was camplefed a‘l’ 1 pm. While conduc‘r’mg The im‘ervlew, The horms nné gliieelines laid dowri as per Annexure-R/l whereEy preference was To be giveh f0 whdidafes from Weaver communiiy was hep? l‘n mind as well as fhe guidelines for selec‘iion issued by documenf Annexure—R/l. and also as per exisfihg policy of The SmTe Governmenf and ulfi‘mofely ouT of 6 candidafes, 4 candidates were selecfed ahd Two cahdidcd‘es were kepf in fhe woi‘i’irzg lief. If hoe fur’rher been meni’ioi’ied fhcn‘ inferview da’re could have beer relaxed, for the reason Thom sfricfr guidelines were is’sued by The Cen‘rral Governmehf 111w af‘rer The a l complefioaq of selecfion procass, if ‘rhe panel of Flames was m‘r receivad §y 20-é-2004 “:ar‘om The Smfé cf Chhaf?isgarh, *rheri The quo‘ra aiioTTed To The 5mm 91" Chha'i'f§sgarh would be re-ailo?1'ed f0 *rhe cmdidafes from wher SmTes. ‘s'herefore, af'rer sekc‘rimg 4 cmciida‘ras and keeping 2 in The warring 1%37‘, m2 panel of mmes was dispm'chai 1‘0 fha Director, Indian Ensi'ifu’fe of HandEoom Technoiogy, Jodhpur on 16-é—2004 ifself Vida dispa’rch No.861. {6) The. fax messa9e (Annexuré—P/FJ) senf _ b' ‘Y The Paf§fioner was raceivad enly a? 2.34 AN much affer' The compleTion of ioTerview anti afTar The rrocaedi‘n a 9s of The SalecTion CommiTTee was comF laTad. Thus, The: SalecTiorx CommiTTae could noT, in any woy, all over sTar‘T The process of i'nTervlew ogcsm or exTend iT especially in View of The insTrucTions issued by 'The lnd'ian insTiTuTe of Handloom Technology. The enTire selecTion was imporTial and conducfed accondTng To The norms whereby only eligihle condidaTee were selecTeol giving preference To The Weaver communi‘ry, which is evidenT from perusal of The eharT (Annexure-R/5). The peTéTioner has no cause of acTion ogoinsT The answering responden‘rs. Zn TacT, cause of acTion of The peTiTioner, if any' would lie againsT The DeparTmenT of PosT-s and Telegraphs under whom The mode of speed posT delivery is being done, end who claim ThaT They would deliver The leTTere etc. anywhere ih The counTry wiThin 3 days. Therefore, There was no lapse on The parT of The answering respondenTs. The peTiTioner has ho locus sTandi To challenge The selecTion of The candidaTes who have been "shorT—iisTed having been found eligible for pari‘icipa’ring in Diploma Course of Indian InsTiTuTe of Handloom Technology. The peTiTioner is noT enTiTled To Thvoke The exTraordiioary wriT jurisdicfion, as .¥ a The proper remedy available. To The peTiTioner would be To claim damages from The DeparTmenT of PosTs and Telegraphs Through a civil suiT. (7) The maTTer was Taken up for hearing on admission and inTerim relief on‘6—7—2004 and on ThaT day iT was direcTed To keep one seaT vacanT Till The nexT daTe of hearing. . (8) I have . heard The learned counsel for The parTies. (Ks ll ._ l (9) earned counsel for fhe pafi+ioner submi‘Hed Thaf 'z‘he respondem‘s deliberafely sen? inferview ca” leffer' wifh such a s‘nor’f mfice so as 1‘0 ensura ‘H'Ic‘k all i’he carIdidaTes should no? raceive cal} lei‘fer‘s iii Téme and no’r To give ?hem sufficienf fi'me To appear before The Im‘erview Beard. He fur-war subrmi‘md Thaf The MinisTry of Tex‘i'iles sen? Their communica‘i‘ion 0n 6~4-2004 imimming The respondem‘s for selecfion of 4 candidm‘es from fhe 5mm 9f Chha‘rfisgarh, rherefore, The respondenfs had sufficient fime. w§i‘h fhem To Sssue an adver‘fisemenf invi‘hng apphca'rions and conduc? inferview wi‘fhin a sTipub‘red 'fime‘ BUT, They issued miveri'isemem oniy on 25-5-2004 ihrc-ugh The newspaper “Danik Bhaskar" and ihe ias‘r da‘re for receiving ‘rhe applicm‘ions was fixed 8-64004. The respxonden'rs were noi‘ iefi‘ wi’rh sufficienT Time for issuing call leTTers and inTimaTing The applicanTs To appear before ihe lni’erview Board. While fixing *rhe scheduie, The respondenfs oughi in have ai—ieasi' kepi‘ minimum i'wo week's fime i‘er iniimm‘ing The candida‘res i0 appear before The ln‘ierview Board. In fhis case, caii ie‘i’rers were dispa‘icheci on 11—6—2004, Sai‘urday and Sunday being a holiday and inferview was fixed on 16-6-2004, Therefore, only 4 days' Time was lef'i in be‘rween which canno‘i' be said fo be a reasonable fime for imima‘l’ing fhe candidai‘es “lo appear before The InTerview Board. Therefore, faulTy procedure was adopTed by The respondenTs. (10) Since, This shorT Time was iefT, Therefore, The respondenTs oughT To have followed The procedure for inTimaTing The candidaTes To appear before The Board by adopTing The mode of Telegram, fox, Telephone, T.‘v’., E— mail or publicaTion in The newspaper, as has beenEhel‘dgy This CourT in The Judgmenf daTed 21“ November 2003 in The WriT PeTiTion No.3243/2003. Learned counsel for The peTiTioner furTher submiTTed ThaT as per Annexure— R/5 The lisT of The candidaTes who were required To appear before The lnTerview $oard, ouT of The 9 candidaTes, 3 candidaTes inclusive of The peTiTioner were from Champa Town and ouT of These Three persons, none of .The candidaTes appeared before The InTerview Board, as They were noT inTimaTed Timely. This facT iTself shows ThaT There was some \ deHber L a‘HampT on The par? of fhe respondenfs f9 send inferview ca}! leTWr's of $hor‘r dumfion 1‘0 mee‘r fheir‘ de3ign and even‘rualiy one Sa'fyapmkash was selecfed by The responde'ms, who was already over age and evan he was given preference over ?he elig§bfe candida‘ms. This facf H'seH: shows The; manner in which The inferview was conduci‘ed and preference was given 1‘0 inehgi‘cie candida’fe over fhe eligibie candida‘res. He fur‘rher submi??ed fhaT one Shankar‘ Kumar Kausha? was also selected, even Theugh he was 035. candida‘l‘e bu? he was no? from ‘rhe Weavers communi'h/ whereas] fhe pennoner and fwo ofher candidafes who had no? appeareé before fhe IMerview Qaard were no? oniy O.B.C. buffaiso from “rhe Weavers communify, ‘a‘herefore, ‘a“hey were enfiflea‘ for preference as against seiecfed candidafe Mr. Kaushal and The 'pe‘n‘fioner was more merii‘orious Then a?~leasT 2 candidafes who were se!ecfed and puT in *rhe paneL (11) On ’rhe ofher hand, 2earned counsel for fhe respondenfs submif'md fha‘r since fhe respondenfs were required fo send seieci'ion iisi so as 1’0 reach Jodhpur by 20w June 2004, Therefore, fhis course was adopfed. As per The norms of The Telegraphs and Posi‘ Office Deparfmenf The speed posf leffers are deiivered wifhin 3 days, fherefore, 4- days‘ fime was aiiowed fo fhe candidafes for infima‘l’ing Them and appearing before The lnferview Board. Therefore, responden’rs cannof be heid negligen‘i' in fhis manner. The ofher allegafions of The counsel for fhe pefifioner are not correo’r and are no? based on any plausible grounds. (12) Having heard The learned counsel for The parTies, E have perused The record. A perusal of The lisT (Annexure—Rl5)f submiTTed by The respondenTs reveals ThaT 9 candidaTes were shorT—lisTed for calling Them To appear before The InTerview Board and ouT of These, The candidaTe No.9 namely, SaTyaprakash was obviously over age and This has been admiTTed by The respondenTs in Their reTurn. Therefore, he was noT eligible for inTerview, even Then he was selecTed. This facT iTself speaks much abouT The manner in 'which The selecTion of candidaTes was made. OUT of The remaining 8 T @ candidates, as per “:Lhe guidelines, The pe‘rifioner was enfh’kd for prefzrence’ over i'he selecfed candidafe Shankar Kumar Kous'nal for The reason 'rhm’ §hankar Kumar‘ Kaushal was sniy 0.3.0 candida‘re, wherew, fhe pefifioner‘ was no? only O.B.C. buf also from The Weavers communify and as per guideline No.4 0f The adver‘risemenf, if was made clear l‘ha‘l in The malfer of seleclion, preference should be given To candidaies belongihg ‘m heredi‘mry weavers families or Those who are in The profession. Looking “r0 The perceniage of The pe‘riiioner he was more merii‘orious Then ‘i’he iwo candida‘res selecied. if (13) Now, coming To The quesw‘ion‘abou? 'rhe mode of in‘rimafion as has been men’iionecl in The previous par-i of this order, ihe Minlsi'ry sen? ‘iheir ini’ima’rion 1’0 The respondems vide leTTer daied 6—4—2004 i.e. 2 monihs 14 days before The lasT daTe on which daTe The selecTion lisT was To reach To Indian Insfifuie of Handloom Technology, Jodhpur, fherefore, sufficient ‘iime was wi‘ih The responden’rs i'orinvife applica‘iions and conduof inferview. However, reason besi known i'o fhe responden‘i’s The adverTisen-ien‘i for inviTing applicaTions was issued in The newspaper namely] “Danik Bhaskar" only on 26—5-2004 and afTer‘ shorT lisTing The eligible candidaTes, inTerview coll leTTers were senT only on 11—6—2004 wiTh The shorT noTice of 4 days’ Time To appear before The InTerview Board. This Time, by any sTreTch of imaginaT'ion, cannoT be said To be a sufficienT Time for inTimaTing any condida’re To appear before The InTerview Board and ThaT Too inTimaTing by posT and furTher ThaT The peTiTioner was noT The only candidaTe who had noT received The communicaTion in Time, buT all The Three candidaTes from Champa Town had noT received communicaTion in Time, Therefore, TheygwereK noT able To appear before The InTerview Board. This facT iTself makes The process of selecTion faulTy and making The candidaTes To suffer loss wiThouT any faulT on Their parT. Therefore, respondenTs were noT careful in fixing The claTe of inTerview and mode of communicaTion for inTimaTing The \candidaTes To appear before The InTerview Board looking To The shorT Time. In The normal circumsTances, when The candidaTe is called for inTerview, normaily The inTerview call leTTer is senT aT—leasT 3O days before The daTe of inTerview, buT even in emergency ® i‘hi$ period cannoi' be shorfen by iess Than 10 days Time iooking 1‘0 The disfcmce of ’rhe place where ‘rhe candido‘fe is res§ding so as ”(o give h€m a sufficien? fime ‘rc receive The m‘rimwmn, prepare himself and jaurney 1*i'me m appear before #Ie EMer‘view Board. As a MST ressrf, if a? all 'g‘here was any emergency for ”rhe respondem' and ?hey were nof having Thai much of ’rime a? 'iheir command, Then The respondem’s oughi‘ To have had ensured “rim? all ihe candidates are imima’feci by my of i‘he foiiowing modee in addifion 1'0 usual mode: By publishing in ‘rhe hewspoper; (ii) Through Telephone: (iii) (EV) E~mail and (V) Television ere. Fax: whichever mode was convehieni To fhe respondem's. l? was ihe reshonsibiiify of responden‘l's “r0 ensure ‘rha’r all candidaies are informed am} have su; .Cficiehi .L .I.:ime .q..0 reach and appear before Emerview Board. (14) 'l‘his is ho? firs? insfance in fhis Sfa’re where such a lapse has occurred raiher if has been noficed and observed eariier also 'ihaf fhe éovernmehf Machihery ih fhe Sfa‘te of Chhaffisgarh is in fhe habif of commifi‘ihg such lapee for "ihe reasons hes? known To Them. This is a backward 5fafe where The mode of communicafion and The Soverhmehf Machinery is hof fhaf efficiem‘ ih comparison "i”o ofher developed Sfafes. Parficuiarly fhe cifizens of fhis Sfafe who are residir’iglih fhe rural areas are very backward and fhey are hof vigilanf abouf fheir righi‘s, as fhe cifizens of fhe ofher parf of fhe counfry and fhaf is why fhe Governmem‘ Officials are faking fhe sysfem for ride wifhouf invifing any adminisfrafive aci‘ion againsf fhem. This Courf earlier also in ifs order dafed 21$ November 2003 passed in WP. No.3243/2003 in The maffer of medical admission in 6i‘i'ika shanker R’iishra Versus 5fofe of Chhaffisgarh 8: Gfhers expressed anguish and concern and held fhaf: M ; “Before parfing wifh The order E deem if appropria’re 1‘0 observe fha‘r fhis is no? i’he firsf case where fhe faulfy procedure far communica‘ving “(he Si‘udenfs 1'0 appear far counselirzg has been chaHenged. Such cases are coming up frequgnfly before This Court Therefore, all The UnEversiTies and The concerned cufhorifies are expecfed 1‘0 devise a meThod for communica’i’ion of nofice invifmg eligible candidafes fo appear for counsehng and f0 mainmin ‘s‘mosparency in The admission process so fha? no grievance is raised by any candidafe. For example in 'i'his connec‘aoa for flue fir-sf counseling “il’ie procedure which is in vogue can be coni‘inued bu‘r where The second and furiher counseling is required f0 be conducied and shor‘i' Time is lef‘r for communica’rion of no‘iice as few number af candidafes are required i0 be cornmunicafed, iherefore, The aufhoriiies can adopT oi‘her methods of communicai’ion i.e. by sending “relegram on iheir given address, Through fax, ielephone, T.V. or E-mail address in order ’ro avoid complica‘iions and unnecessary li’rigafion. En order To adopf ihis procedure a“? ihe fime of invi‘iing applicafions fhe candidafes can be asked To give iheir felephone numbers, fax number, E—mail numbers and correcf a’elegram address in ihe applicai'ion r;iorm. n In This case, 'i'he peiii’ioner received call ie'lrgfer “for inferview only on i6—&«2Q04 a? 2 em whereas, he was required To appear before The infer-view goard ai ‘11 em on fhe same day, iherefore, he immediaieiy iniimm‘ed ihe respondenis Through fax fha‘r he has received fhe le‘H‘er af 2 pm. Aparf from Tha‘i‘, Two ofher candidai'es of fhe same place could no‘i appear before Enferview Qoard on accounf of non—receipf of The infer-view call le'i‘fer r in-fime. Therefore, fhe ac‘iion of The responden‘rs, in any manner, cannof be ,‘ i\ IV 10 said To be just fair‘cmd reasonable and fhe pe‘miener has been demed hés jusT righ‘a‘ by sheer mgligence on the par‘f of resporudenfs officia!s. (15) In fhe resuh, fhe writ pefifion is aHowed. The respomdem‘s are dimmed +0 caH The pe’ri‘i‘ioner 1‘0 appear before fhe In're‘r‘view Board on a éafe To be fixed by fhe respondem‘s in The week commencing from 19“ July 2004, «w; af¢er conduc’rmg fhe infer‘viaw of The pe'rifionar, prepare The merif .iisf and f0 ’rake furfher‘ ac‘fion accordingly. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge 12-7-2004