1
2024:CGHC:33260
Digitally signed
by RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
W.P.(S) No. 3789 of 2014
• Nagendra Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri B.P. Tiwari, aged about 27 years, R/o
Village- Dullapur, Post- Mahli, Block – Pandariya, Police Station-
Kundra, Civil and Revenue, District- Kabirdham (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary Urban Administration &
Development Department, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Raipur, Police Station- New Raipur, Civil and Revenue
District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. Commissioner, Urban Administration & Development Department,
Raipur, Police Station Kotwali, Civil and Revenue District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. Joint Director, Urban Administration & Development Department,
Divisional Office Raipur, 1st Floor, Subhash Stadium, in front of
Motibag, Raipur, Police Station- Kotwali, Civil and Revenue District-
Raipur (C.G.)
4. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Pandatarai, Police Station –
Pandatarai, Civil and Revenue District - Kabirdham (C.G.)
5. Sunil Kumar Khutle S/o Johan Lal Khuntle, aged about 28 years,
Village – Domanpur, Post- Dashrangpur, Tahsil- Mungeli, Civil and
Revenue District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
6. Kishore Kumar Keshariya S/o Narayan Bhai Keshariya, aged about 28
years, R/o Police Line, beside Sheetla Mandir, Ward No. 2,
Dongargaon, Police Station- Dongargaon, Civil and Revenue District
Rajnandgaon.
... Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 to 3/State : Ms. Soumya Sharma,
Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate
For Respondent No. 5. : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate
For Respondent No. 6 : None
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
30.08.2024
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-
“10.1. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Court may
kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions and the order dated 16.09.13
(Annex. P-1) passed by the respondent no. 3 may
kindly be quashed and consequently quash the
selection of the respondent no. 5 & 6.
10.2. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Court may
kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions to the respondent authorities to
consider the case of the petitioner afresh, for the post
of Assistant Grade-III in the Nagar Panchayat,
Pandatarai, District Kabirdham (C.G.).
10.3. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed
fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case.”
2. The facts of the present case are that an Advertisement was issued by
respondent No. 4 in the month of May 2013 for 01 post of Assistant
Grade-III and 01 post of Assistant Cashier and both the posts were
meant for Unreserved category. The required qualification for the post
of Assistant Grade-III was one-year Diploma in
Data-Entry-Operator/Programming with a computer typing speed of
5000 key depression per hour. The petitioner submitted his application
form for the post of Assistant Grade-III along with other aspirants. The
admit cards were issued to the eligible candidates after scrutiny of the
application forms, the petitioner and other eligible candidates
participated in a skill test and thereafter, a merit list was prepared. As
per the merit list, the petitioner secured 11.21 marks, whereas
respondent No. 5 secured 11.90 marks and thus, respondent No. 5
was selected and later on appointed vide order dated 16.09.2013. The
3
petitioner sought some documents and information from respondent
No. 3 under the Right to Information Act and the documents were
supplied to the petitioner on 20.06.2014. The documents supplied by
respondent No. 3 would show that the computer typing speed of
respondent No. 5 was 824 key depression per 10 minutes, whereas
the typing speed of the petitioner was 1124 key depression per 10
minutes. It is further pleaded that respondent No. 5 though could not
qualify for the skill test, but he was selected and appointed, whereas
the petitioner who qualified for the skill test was not considered for
appointment.
3. Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner argued that the petitioner as well as respondents No. 5 and 6
along with other candidates participated in the skill test as they had
requisite educational qualifications for the post of Assistant Grade III.
He further argued that as per information supplied by respondent No.
3, the computer typing speed of the petitioner was 1124 key depression
per 10 minutes and the typing speed of respondent No. 5 was 824 key
depression per 10 minutes. He also argued that if the required key
depression per hour of 5000 is divided by 10 minutes, the required key
depression per 10 minutes would be 834. He contended that the
computer typing speed of respondent No. 5 was less than required,
whereas the typing speed of the petitioner was more than required and
therefore, respondent No. 3 committed an error of law in selecting and
appointing respondent No. 5 and ignoring the candidature of the
petitioner. He further contended that the appointment order of
respondent No. 5 may quashed and a direction may be issued to
respondents No. 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner’s candidature.
4
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respective respondents
would oppose.
5. Mr. Santosh Bharat, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.
5 submitted that the Selection Committee after due consideration
issued an appointment order. He further submitted that the information
supplied under the Right to Information Act is not correct. He also
submitted that respondent No. 5 has been working on the post of
Assistant Grade-III since 16.09.2013 and after 11 years, it would create
hardship if he is removed from the services.
6. Mr. Manish Nigam, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4
fairly submitted that from a perusal of information supplied by
respondent No. 4, the computer typing speed of the petitioner was
more than required. He further submitted that the computer typing
speed of respondent No. 5 was less than required even though he was
appointed. He also submitted that at present in Nagar Panchayat-
Pandatarai there are no vacant posts, but in the nearby Nagar
Panchayat Bodla, 03 posts are vacant i.e. 01 post of Sanitary
Inspector; 01 post of Assistant Revenue Inspector and 01 post of
Accountant. He contended that the petitioner was qualified and eligible
for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-III and he can be
accommodated by the State if a direction is issued to the State.
7. Ms. Soumya Sharma, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the
State/respondents No. 1 to 3 would oppose the submissions made by
Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan. She further submitted that the appointment
order was issued by respondent No. 4 but since Nagar Panchayat
Bodla has not been arrayed as a party, no direction can be issued to
the State Government to accommodate the petitioner.
5
8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
documents available on the record.
9. From a perusal of the information supplied under the Right to
Information Act, it is quite vivid that the computer typing speed of the
petitioner was 1124 key depression per 10 minutes, whereas the speed
of respondent No. 5 was 824 key depression per 10 minutes. The
required speed was 5000 key depression per hour and 834 key
depression per 10 minutes. The speed of respondent No. 5 was less
than the required, whereas the speed of the petitioner was more than
required, but the Selection Committee ignored the speed of the
petitioner and issued the appointment order in favour of respondent
No. 5. It is contended by Mr. Manish Nigam, counsel appearing for
respondent No. 4 that at present, there is no vacant post at Nagar
Panchayat Pandatarai, but he would narrate the fact that there are 03
posts lying vacant at Nagar Panchayat Bodla. Though Nagar
Panchayat Bodla has not been arrayed as a party, all Nagar
Panchayats fall under the Urban Administration Development
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur and therefore, a direction can
be issued to respondents No. 1 to 3 to consider the candidature of the
petitioner for appointment on a suitable post in any nearby Nagar
Panchayat or Nagar Panchayat Bodla as the petitioner was meritorious
and due to inadvertence or otherwise he could not be appointed.
10. Though respondent No. 5 was not eligible for appointment as he could
not qualify for the computer typing examination, since he was
appointed on 16.09.2013, it would not be appropriate to disturb him
after a lapse of 11 years, therefore, respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed
to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on a suitable
post under any Nagar Panchayat or Nagar Panchayat Bodla on the
6
equivalent post. The entire exercise shall be completed by respondents
No. 1 to 3 within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
11. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), this petition stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
vatti