Hem Lal Chandrakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 in both the appeals as well as Mr. Shobhit Mishra and Mr. Ashish Beck, learned counsel, appearing for the Intervenors in WA No. 541 of 2022.

Both these appeals are filed against an order dated 15.09.2022 passed in WPS No. 3606 of 2021 and batch, which includes WPS Nos. No. 3572 of 2021 and 3714 of 2021.

WA No. 541 of 2022 arises out of WPS No. 3714 of 2021 and WA No. 542 of 2022 arises out of WPS No. 3572 of 2021.

By an order dated 28.07.2022 passed in WPS No. 3606 of 2021 and batch, the Public Service Commission was directed to declare result within a period of ten days from that date. Thereafter, by an order dated 18.08.2022, the Public Service Commission was directed to finalize the selection list in the selection process including the writ petitioners, but the State was directed not to issue appointment orders till the controversy is set right by the Court.

The Public Service Commission had preferred an appeal being WA No. 449 of 2022 against the said order dated 18.08.2022. Subsequently, number of writ appeals came to be filed against the said order 18.08.2022 at the instance of the Public Service Commission. While issuing notice in WA No. 449 of 2022, by an order dated 23.08.2022, the following portion of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.08.2022 was stayed till the next date fixed:

“PSC is directed to finalize the selection list of the candidates who have participated in the selection process including the petitioners, but the State will not issue their appointment orders till the controversy is set right by this Court.”

It was also observed that the learned Single Judge may proceed with the matter of hearing the cases, and accordingly, directed the Registry to list the cases on 24.08.2022, as ordered by the learned Single Judge.

While disposing of the said WA No. 449 of 2022 and the connected batch by an order dated 07.11.2022, this Court at paragraphs 13, 14 and 15, observed as follows:

“13. The question as to whether the writ petitioners fulfill the eligibility criteria in terms of advertisement dated 23.01.2019 is to be determined in the writ petitions. It appears from the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge that a direction was issued to place the constitution of the Expert Committee for consideration of the learned Single Judge.

In the aforesaid background, direction by way of an interim measure to finalize the selection list of the candidates including the writ petitioners amounts to final relief granted to the writ petitioners, that too, without their eligibility being determined. It is also noticed that the learned Single Judge himself records that appointment orders are not to be issued as the controversy is yet to be set right by the Court. That being the position, direction to finalize the selection list was uncalled for.

In that view of the matter, the impugned interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.08.2022 cannot be sustained in law, and therefore, the same is set aside.”

It is submitted by Mr. Sharma that though by the order dated 23.08.2022 passed in WA No. 449 of 2022, this Court had stayed the order dated 18.08.2022, whereby direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the Public Service Commission to finalize the selection list of the candidates, the learned Single Judge, by the present impugned order dated 15.09.2022 directed appointment orders to be issued subject to final outcome of the writ petitions, namely, WPS No. 3572 of 2021 and WPS No. 3714 of 2021.

Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel for Public Service Commission submits that though in respect of WPS No. 3572 of 2021 appointment order has been directed to be issued, there is no such order in respect of WPS No. 3714 of 2021.

Though the order dated 15.09.2022 is passed in WPS No. 3606 of 2022 and batch, which includes WPS No. 3714 of 2021 and WPS No. 3572 of 2021, the contents of the order goes to show that there is reference to only WPS Nos. 3572 of 2021, 3616 of 2021, 3606 of 2021, 3572 of 2021, 3469 of 2021, 5865 of 2022, 4026 of 2021 and 3951 of 2021. There is no reference to WPS No. 3714 of 2021 in the body of the order and therefore, we are of the opinion that no order has been passed in the aforesaid writ petition directing appointment.

Admittedly, WPS No. 3572 of 2021 was part of the order dated 18.08.2022, which was stayed by this Court in WA No. 449 of 2022 by an order dated 23.08.2022. By the said order, direction to finalize the selection list was stayed. When such an order was holding the field, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge directing appointment was not called for.

Taking that view, the order dated 15.09.2022 insofar as it relates to WPS No. 3572 of 2021, directing the State to appoint the selected candidates by allowing the application filed by the State to vacate the order dated 14.07.2021, is set aside.

The writ appeals stand disposed of with the above observations and directions.