(y ^ ^ JNTME HIGH COUKT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. <3$332003 Petltl©iier Versiss Respo'Mdei&t^ :.^'\^>'^^' .C5C$^' ^°\^^>t" ^•\^v ."^ ''?'•- Smt.Sushma Gloria Ekka ^/oVinod Kumar Ekka, aged about 28 years, R/o Naya Jagatpur P^.aig%rlL Dist : B^igarh" (C.G.) 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Health Department, DKS Bhawan, R%ipm'-(CXT.) The. Chie.fM edical & Health Officer, Rai§arh"(C.G.) 3. Kumari Jyoti Lakra D/o Shri Francis Lakra R/o Naya Mouila, Rambhata, Raigarh, Dist: Raigarh-(C.G.) 4. Ths Coilector Raigarh, Dist : Raigarh- 2. WRTT PETFFION UNDER ARTICLE 1" OF THE CONSTITUTION OF_B?»IA p ( ^.^ ^-4 J^ - ^r^ ^^^^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.3592 OF 2003 1—^ PETITIONER Smt. Sushma Gloria Ekka Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition underArticles 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Present: - Shri Anand Dadariyai, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N. Naha Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.1,2&4. None for respondents No.3 though served. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 16th day of June,2011) By this petition, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of selection and appointment of respondent No.3 on the post of Assistant Grade-111 (Reserved Categor\/). 2. The facts necessary for decision of the present case are that the respondent No.2 had issued an advertisement inviting application for appointment to the one post of Clerk/Office Assistant Grade III. The post, which was advertised, was reserved forScheduled Tribe category and the process of selection was initiated to clear the backlog vacancy. The petitioner applied for the post. On 22-08-2003, a corrigendum was issued by the respondent No.2, by which, the qualification for the post of Assistant Grade-111 was amended. A letter was issued on 19-09-2003 (Annexure P-3) to five candidates including the petitioner and the respondent No.3 for appearance in the efficiency test and verification of certificates on 26-09-2003. It is the case ofthe petitioner that on that day, the petitioner appeared in the test and along with the petitioner, Smt. Albesia & Kumari Emma Suchita Toppo also appeared, but other two candidates namely Shri Ramadhar Singh and Shri Narsingh Prasad Sidar did not appear. This is the case of the petitioner that 1 .--1 ^' the respondent No.3 was not even called for interview. However, on 10-10- 2003, the petitioner came to know thatan order of appointment of respondent No.3 has been issued on 01-10-2003 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner submitted representation on 17-10-2003 followed by another representation to the District Collector, but as the illegal order of appointment was not withdrawn nor the petitioner granted any relief, the petitioner approached this Court by filing instant writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the appointment of respondent No.3 is wholly illegal and is an act of backdoor entry, because the respondent No.3 was neither called nor appeared for verification of certificates and efficiency test on 26-09-2003, yet she has been given appointment. He further submits that the respondent No.2 in order to extend undue favour and patronage, have concocted the false story that pursuant to first advertisement, 11 applications were received, out of which, only 5 candidates are found eligible and those eligible candidates were required to remain present for efficiency test on 19-08-2003, on which date, only two applicants including the petitioner and the respondent No.3 appeared in the test and markswere given to the petitioner and the respondent No.3. Learned counsel submits that in fact, on that date, nobody appeared and all the documents were falsely created to somehow justify the backdoor appointment of respondent No.3. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that pursuant to the first advertisement, as many as 11 applications were received and upon scrutiny, only five of them, were found eligible. Thereafter, all those five candidates were required to remain present for efficiency test on 19-08-2003 and on which date, only the petitioner and the respondent No.3 remained present. The petitioner was allotted 51.73 marks and the respondent No.3 ^ was allotted 62.07 marks. But later on, it was felt that the first advertisement dated 26-07-2003 (Annexure R-1) created confusion with regard to minimum qualification, and therefore, corrigendum was issued on 22-08-2003, pursuant to which, 31 applications were received including the application of the petitioner also. Out of these 31 applications, only 8 candidates were found to be in order and on 26-09-2003, 8 candidates were called for test, but on that date, only 3 candidates appeared including the petitioner. It is further submitted that though, respondentNo.3 was also called to appear in the test on 26-09-2003, but she expressed her inability to remain present and stated that her efficiency test taken on 19-08-2003 may be taken as her performance, on which basis, a comparative merit list was prepared including the petitioner and the respondent No.3 and all other candidates and as the respondent No.3 was found having secured higher marks, she was given appointment 5. From the pleadings and documents on record and the submission made by learned counsel for the pariiies, it appears that pursuant to first advertisement issued on 26-07-2003 (Annexure R-1), as many as 11 applications were received. The stand of the official respondent is that on 19-08-2003, the candidates were called, in which, only two candidates appeared namely the petitioner and the respondent No.3 and after taking efficiency test, a comparative chart was prepared. However, it is not in dispute thatsubsequently a corrigendum was issued, in which, the qualification for the post of Assistant Grade III was amended. Pursuant to that advertisement, 31 applications were received. It is the case of the respondents themselves that 8 candidates were found to be eligible and called for appearing in the test on 26-09-2003. A perusal of memo dated 19-09-2003 (Annexure P-3) shows that only 5 candidates were called ^ c^ for verification of ceri:ificates and efficiency test on 26-09-2003. It is also admitted by the respondents that the respondent No.3 did not appear in the test, though she was called, because she expressed her inability to appear in the examination. If that be so, it was wholly illegal on the part of the respondent authorities to consider candidature of respondent No.3. The entire process of selection appears to be highly doubtful. The petitioner has stated that the petitioner and respondent No.3 never appeared on 19-08-2003, whereas respondents stated that the petitioner had appeared on 19-08-2003, which is the first round of selection. However, the respondents have pleaded in their return that after issuance of corrigendum, 31 applications were received, and upon scrutiny, 8 applications were found in order, and therefore, 8 candidates were called for test on 26-09-2003, but letter dated 19-09-2003 (Annexure P-3) shows that only five candidates were invited for selection. Thirdly, the fact that the petitioner, who had appeared in the first round of selection, was again called for test, but the respondent No.3, assuming that she was called, did not appear. The respondents have not placed on record any letter, which shows calling of respondent No.3 for test on 26-09-2003 as well. It is pleaded in the return that respondent No.3 sent a letter, in which, it is stated that she will not be able to participate in the process of selection on 26-09-2003, and therefore, her performance on 19-08-2003 may be treated as final. It is therefore clear that the respondent No.3 did not participate in the process of selection, which was held on 26-09- 2003. Even if the case of the respondents is to be accepted that the respondent No.3 was also called for selection on 26-09-2003, non- appearance of respondent No.3 on that date, clearly disentitled her for appointment, because she did not appear in the test at all. The applicationof respondent No.3 that her test held on 19-08-2003 should be taken as final, ^•.^m^. 1 i''®B|J ••^ '^ ^' was liable to be rejected, but the respondents proceeded to accept the same and considered her candidature, even though, respondent No.3 did not appear in the test on 26-09-2003. The respondent No.3 was served, she failed to appear and refute the allegations made by the petitioner in the instant petition. Therefore, the entire process of selection to the post of Assistant Grade III is declared illegal. As the entire process of selection has been found to be illegal, the appointment order (Annexure P-4) issued in favour of respondent No.3 is hereby quashed. The respondent No.2 shall prepare the select list afresh on the basis of the performance of the candidates in the test held on 26-09-2003 and make appointment on the post ofAssistant Grade III, strictly in accordance with law. 6. In view of the foregoing, the petition is allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above. No orders as to cost. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane