€^1 BENCH BEFORE THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S)NO. •^WL[ / 2010 PETITIONER ^ ..•;•< ^p-^ ^v'^y ^^<^Yyy - ...^ r^/.y <.\ t^-^•yw :^ RESPONDENTS Ku. Bhagwati Chouhan, D/o Shri Vakil Ram Chouhan, aged about 22 years, resident of Gram Panchayat Kapisda, Janapad Panchayat Bamnidih, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh - through the Secretary, Panchayat, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Chief Executive Officer, Janapad Panchayat Bamnidih, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 3) Suresh Kumar Chandrabhas, son of Shri Jagdish Prasad, aged about 21 years, Rojgar Sahayak, Gram Panchayat Kapisda, Janapad Panchayat Bamnidih, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Ft ^ @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 3804 of2010 PETITIONER : Ku. Bhagwati Chouhan. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri P.R.Patankar^ Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Surya Kant Mishra, Advocate for the resp'bndent No.2. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 20th day of January, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks qaashing of the appointment of respondent No. 3 on the post of Rojgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat, Kapisda, Janpad Panchayat Bamnidih and further, to direct the respondent No. 2 to appoint the petitioner on the said post. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner^ being the resident of Gram Panchayat, Kapisda and belonging to Scheduled Caste category, applied for appointment on the post ofRojgar Sahayak, reserved For a scheduled caste candidate. Five other candidates also applied for the said post. The petitioner, who is class 12 pass with 64% of marks and having two years experience as Rojgar Sahayak, has been denied appointment on the said post whereas^ the respondent No. 3 has been selected vvho is having no experience in the field. Shri Patankar further submits that a male candidate has been selected, whereas according to the ^..'^y ^ss,^^^ ^»1 advertisement dated 09.11.2009 (Annexure P/l)^ the post was reserved for the female candidate. He relies on clause 8 of the advertisement. The appointment ofthe respondent No. 3 on the aforesaid post is mala fide and arbitrary. r 3. On theother hand, Shri Surya Kant Mishra, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that as per the merit list prepared by the selection committee in respect ofthe applications for the post of Rojgar Sahayak pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.11.2009 (Annexure P/l) the respondent No. 3 secured 70.02 marks out of 100 and even after award of 10 marks for her experience^ she could have secured only 67.78 marks out of 100. Thus^ in all respects, the respondent No. 3 was more meritorious and he was accordingly appointed. 4. shri Roy, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent N.o. 1 adopts the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 5. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3, despite service of notice. r 6. On perusal ofthe advertisement dated 09.11.2009 (Annexure P/l), it is very much clear that the post ofRojgar Sahayak for Gram Panchayat, Kapisda was only reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate. There is no mention with regard to appointment ofman or woman candidate. In the advertisement, where the post was reserved for woman candidate, it was clearly mentioned, as shown in Sonadah, Puchli and Hathnewra. But in the instant case i.e. for Gram Panchayat Kapisda, the post was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate, but not for woman. Further, ^ i ^s^^ ^ "%. ^ ././ Y...X;y ^^-^.•j^^" £^ (^ the reliance of the petitioner on clause 8 of the a'dvertisement is also misplaced, as it only states that if scheduled caste or scheduled tribe woman candidate is not available, then from the same category, a male candidate may be appointed. It is not the case that if a woman candidate has applied, then she should be given preference over the male candidate. 7. It is further revealed that even ifthe experience ofthe petitioner who had earlier worked on the post of Rojgar Sahayak is taken into account, then also, the respondent No. 3 would be on a better position than that ofthe petitioner. Thus, no infirmity or irregularity is found in the appointment ofthe respondent No. 3. The allegation ofmalafide and arbitrariness is baseless and self same statement, unsupported by substantial documentary evidence, or otherwise. 8. In view ofthe above and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit