_ g‘ed-{abq /a-.Ho.us ,zffNcujpaQ’s} mriti ‘.;agafr,,cfi6 ; , r Bhila‘i ; :Nag‘air, L District— L h h H I, :af2 attiggar Tn r ow : J Developme D;K.S. J Bhawa' é‘ip‘artmc/‘riit’ ‘ 7 9R;ai_put5(’. /2_; :éi ' Co’xinxhig au 'Rex _ ‘ Nw L i I V C 8 nt I3 n; ’ if: f D, L c.G), E § HIGH COURT‘OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAS Writ Petition S) No. 384 of209 ( 0 abeen Mhj Vrss eu i l i Petitioner Resondent ps State of‘Chhattisgarh 85 noter ah .P.(S os. 38, 418, 41 and 41 of 2009. I I Post for Judgment 85 Order on this 7%y ofOct 9 I 1 I J J { l Sd/— 1 atish K;Agnihoti»i Judge I v v ‘7 \ PUR ‘ And W) N 5 7 ? ober, 200. i (1.. I S 'fk L, ; A [HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR ‘ WRIT PETITION (S) No 3841 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 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Ms‘KMeena Shastri, Advocate for the petitioners Ms Sunlta Jam, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No l / State Shr1 H B Agarwal Semor Advocate w1th Ms Meera Jayaswal and * Shr1 Pankaj Agarwal Advocates for the respondent No 2 JUDGMENT 85 ORDER (Passed on this Z“ 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 1 1.10.2007, can be converted into i other categories in subsequent advertisement on 23.8.2008. 1, Thefrefore, all the Writ Petitions (S) No. 384, 385, 418, 417 and ~ 41? of 2009 are being disposed of by this common order. t 2. Leagrned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that earlier the respondent/Corporation issued an advertisement 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 : Two posts - unreserved ( ExéServiceman ) (ii)‘ One post — unreserved (physically disabled) (iii) Two posts — Scheduled Caste (iv) Three posts — Scheduled Tribe (i) $ é Pursuarit to the above advertisement dated 11.10.2007 the petitioners, having fulfilled the required qual flcations submitted their apialications for appointment on the posts of Urdu Shiksha Karmis Grade —III, Urdu subject. The petitioner in (Mahjbeen) in W.P.(S) No. 384/2009 submitted her application (Annexure P/5) under general category. The pedtionér (Noorjahan) in WP(S) No 385/2009 ’being 40% phys1cally disabled submitted her application (Annexure P/7) under general category for disabled person The petitioner (Julekha Begum) 1n 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 éher application (Annexure P/4) under general category. The petitioner (Naseem Begum Qureshi) in W.P.(S) No. 419/2009 submitted her application (Annexure P/4) under ’ general category. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit thati the petitioners were kept waiting for appointment letter or call letter for interview etc but a subsequent advertisement was 1ssued on 23 8 2008 (Annexure P/6 in WP(S)' No 384/2009) for recrultment of eight posts of Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, which were described as under: i x 1 i (i) Three posts — Free (1E?!) (unreserved). (ii) Two posts - women (unreserved) (iii) One post Free (Ea?!) (O B C ) (iv) One post — women (O.~B.C.) \ ’i(v) One post — Physically disabled person (O.B.C.) I ? h It was next submitted that when the petitioners sougt information about the fate of their applications, submitted by them,pursuant to the earlier advertisement dated 11.10.2007; it was mformed by the respondent No 2 that the petitioners had apphed as General Category Candidates and the advertised posts were not meant for recru1tment from the general cand1dates. As ,,. no candidates were found suitable, no appointments were made. ' i Thereafter, the petitioners have made representations but of no avail. Thus, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions. M’s Meena Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that as per the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Mun1c1pa11ty Shiksha Karmi (Recru1tment and Conditions of Serv1ce) Rules 1998 (for short ‘the Rules, 1998), 1f ex soldler candidate is not available, the post should be allotted among concerned column candidates. She further submitted that it is l evident from the order dated 2.9.1998 (Annexure P/8 in WP(S) No. 384/2009) that the Government has decided that there should be no separate‘number of posts of Urdu Shiksha Karmis unde‘lr reserved categories, instead'the number of posts of Urdu Shiksha Karmis be merged with the other posts of Shiksha Karn'iis in such a manner that in totality there will be no scarcity I t in the number of posts of reserved categories ( WET W ‘arRT Wfmweh3sihmm$mqwsmwm W£Wailmme§f§tmuf$wfanf§1wW$w alsiasfhmmmfeeduftdwfahmwuwahm %‘€l¥§mW.@3lWfEl’cra1f$@#WH&TN).Thus,theaction ”of the respondents is arbitrarypiilegal, contrary to the provisions - y {3 A of law and the instructions issued by the State Government on the subject. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/Corporation would submit that the earlier advertisement dated respondent/Corporation, as the eight posts of Urdu Shiksha Karmi Grade-III were not advertised for the general category ‘ candidates and as such, no appointment was made. Thereafter, subsequent advertisement was issiied on 23.8.2008 for recruitment; of eight posts of Urdu $hiksha Karmi Grade-III. Process for recruitment. is undergoing, thus the petitions are premature and liable to be dismissedl 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 wer> i e described vide corrigendum dated 17.5.2005 (Annexure R-2/ 1), as under: >11.10.2007 was not cted upon by the i _ (i) (ii) (iii) (iV) l Learned counsel would further submit that pursuant to the dvertisement dated 17.5.2005 vide order dated 3.10.2007 14 l persons were appointed and by subsequent order dated 15.11%.2007 two persons were appointed. In the present case theref is no ‘violation of ‘the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules, ”1998.1: l Two posts —— Scheduled Caste. Three posts — Scheduled Tribe. Three posts — O.B.C. Eleven ‘posts — unreserved‘( 1 women, 2 Ex- serviceman, and 1 disabled person) 1" ' y. 1'. a v I héve heard learned counsel appearing for the parties peruse the§ pleadings and documents appended thereto. Rule 5 of the Rules 1998 prov1des for methods of selectlon and recrultment Sub rules (4) and (5) of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1998 are: relevant 1n the case on hand, whlch are reproduced herein belOW : “ (4) Posts of d1rect recrultment of S1h1ksha Karmis shall be reserved for the candldates belonglng to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes 1n accordance Wlth the prov1s1ons of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchlt Jatryon Anusuchit Jan Jatlyobaon Aur Anya Plchhade Vargon Ke Llye Arakshan) Adh1n1yam, 1994(No 21 of 1994) (5): Posts shall be reserved for candidates belonging to women, disabled persons Ex—Servicemen and such other ,classes accordmg to the rules and 1nstructions of the State Government {Provrded that 1f after sendmg the copy of the advertlsement 1ssued for the appomtment of Shlksha Karmi showrng the detalls of the posts reserved for Ex Serv1ceman, to the Dlstrlct Employment Exchange, D1str1ct Ex—Serv1ceman Welfare Board and Dlrector General of Rehablhtatlon the Ex- Sewlceman are not available for the posts reserved for Ex- Serv1ceman and the posts remam vacant the vacant posts shall be fllled 1n from amongst the candidates belonging to the relevant category} It is cl‘ear from the advertisement dated 1 1.10.2007 that 8 posts of UrdZu Shiksha Karmi Grade-III were advertised, out of which under unreserved category, 2 posts were for ex-serviceman and 1 post was for physically disabled person. Under reserved ategories 2 posts were meant fo‘rScheduled Caste category and 3 posts for Scheduled Trlbe Thus, as per the advertlsement only the pet1t10ner (Noorjahan) 1n W P (S) No 385/2009 who bemg 40% physrcally disabled submitted her applicatlon undr e general category for d1sabled person may have grrevance , d c l4; , é I ', , { : 12. \ It! is further clear from the sub‘seq ent advertisement dated 2§.8.2008 that total 8 posts of U'rdu Shiksha Karmi Grade-III were advertised out of which under t e unreserved categOry 3 pdsts are kept free (W ) and 2 posts e for women candidate. t i Under the reserved category i.e. O.B.C. 1 post is free (11a?! ), 1 is to? woman and 1 for physically disabled person. Z i ’i‘tifus‘ it is apparent that in the subse Ment advertisement there V x 1s no place for ex—serv1ceman (2 posts) and phys1cally disabled person (1 post) under unreserved category L1kew1se, there 1s no l / 13. place for Scheduled Caste (2 posts) iand Scheduled Tr1be ( l x l > The question raised in the presentipetitions is asto what happened to 5 reserved seats advertised in the notification dated 11 10 2007 (Annexure — P/ 1) 1n subsequent notlflcation dated 23 08 2008 (Annexure — P/6), as the earlier advertlsement was cancelled on account 'Of the fact that suitable candidates were ‘ x not ava1lab1e for appomtment as 1s ev1dent from memo dated 25 08 2008 (Annexure P/7) posts). 15. The 1*;espondent has not adverted to the main question in its 1 return dated 28.03.2009 except that the process of selection z pursuant to memo dated 25 O8 2008 1s under consrderatlon 1 K 16. It hasi been brought to the notice of th1s Court by the petitloners that the Circular dated 02 O9 1998 (Annexure — P/8) prov1des for over all reservatlon 1n the cadre of Shiksha Karmis there is no 1 separate reservation for Urdu Shiksha Karmis g1, i'/ ' ,. X r ) s l I i gf 17. THe appointments made pursuant to the earlier notifications da‘ted 17.05.2005 and 19.05.2005 ar- of no relevance in the present dispute, as the subsequent notiflcation 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 held that the reservation circular dated 02.09.1998, it cannot be should be speeiiieally provided in case of Urdu Shiksha Karmis. provided in the cadre of Shiksha Karmis, contemplated in thei 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. If éthe sufficient reservations have been 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 of want of suitable candidates, norwrit can be isEsued directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners against the post of Urdu Shiksha Karmis Grade — III. i In the result and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petitions are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. No order asto osts. c 4 Sd/. . ‘ swish K.Ag‘njhotri 1‘ Judge