Kulesh Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. D. N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-State.

The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.1226 of 2014 (Kulesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition challenging the order dated 13.02.2014 passed by respondent No.4 terminating the services of the appellant as Data Entry Operator.

Undisputed facts are that the brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a bona fide resident of the State of Chhattisgarh. Respondent No.2-Chief Conservator of Forest issued an advertisement on 31.07.2013 for filling up various vacant posts of Assistant Grade-III, Data Entry Operator, Assistant Programmer and Steno through direct recruitment and invited applications from suitable and eligible candidates. The petitioner and other candidates applied for one post of Data Entry Operator and on primary scrutiny, the candidatures of 42 candidates were found fit for the written examination and skill/ability test who appeared in the written examination and skill/ability test held on 27/11/2013. The recruitment process was done strictly according to the prescribed procedure as per Annexure-P/1 and respective lists of selected candidates for the different posts were prepared by respondent No. 4 according to the merits of the candidates as per their qualifications and marks obtained by them in the written examination and skill/ability test in which the petitioner’s name was at the top of the list prepared for the post of the Data Entry Operator. Thereafter, the list so prepared was sent to respondent No. 3 for approval which was approved vide letter dated 30.12.2013. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 (Divisional Forest Officer) issued the appointment order/letter dated 03.01.2014 (Annexure-P/2) to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was appointed to the post of Data Entry Operator and was directed to report at the office of the respondent No. 4 along with all the required original testimonies of his qualification and he joined on 08.01.2014 (Annexure-P/3) at the office of respondent No. 4. On the date of joining, the concerned staff member of the office of the respondent No. 4 received the joining of the petitioner and advised him to wait for some time as he wanted to have instruction from the respondent No. 4 but even after waiting for a long time, when nothing was done for his joining, the petitioner met respondent No. 4 and requested to allow his joining but respondent No. 4 instead of accepting the joining of the petitioner informed the petitioner that one Rajesh Rangari has made a complaint to the Chief Minister, State of Chhattisgarh in which he alleged that the answer sheets of the selected and other candidates for the post of Data Entry Operator have been wrongly checked and ineligible and unqualified candidates have been selected. Therefore, in view of the facts alleged in the said complaint, the joining of the petitioner is kept in abeyance till the re-checking of answer sheets of candidates No. 1 and 2 and the petitioner was advised to visit the office after 15.01.2014 in this regard. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 issued an order dated 13.01.2014 to the petitioner informing that for the reason that there being an inquiry into the complaint regarding errors in the answer sheets of the written/practical test, the effect and operation of the appointment order dated 03.01.2014 issued to the petitioner has been stayed till the issuing of amended order. Respondent No. 4 after a lapse of three weeks issued a fresh appointment order/letter dated 21.01.2014 to the petitioner and directed the petitioner to give joining at his office on the post of data entry operator. The appointment order apart from the usual conditions also bore an arbitrary and unreasonable condition as condition No. 9 wherein it was stated that because of the complaint made in this regard, re-checking/re-valuation of the answer sheets were being done and if on enquiry any variation in the merits of the candidates is found, the appointment shall automatically stand cancelled (Annexure-P/ 6). As per the order dated 21.01.2014, the petitioner reported at the office of respondent No. 4 and joined on 24.01.2014 which was received by the concerned office staff of respondent No. 4 and the etitioner’s joining was accepted and he was allowed to start working on the post of data entry operator (Annexure-P/7). The petitioner was allowed to work for about 2 weeks on the post of data entry operator and on 13.02.2014 (Annexure-P/8) respondent No. 4 issued an order containing the brief details of proceedings carried into the alleged complaint made regarding the checking of the answer sheets of the candidates for the post of data entry operator and vide the aforesaid impugned order the respondent No. 4 cancelled the appointment of the petitioner and terminated the services of the petitioner.

Learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.02.2023 dismissed the writ petition of the appellant by observing as follows :

“10. Reverting to the fact of this case, it is clear from the order dated 21.01.2014 (Annexure-P/6) there was a condition that the revaluation of answer sheets is going on and if any variation is found shown in the merit list, the order of appointment shall automatically stand cancelled. The petitioner accepted the terms and conditions of the said order and joined as a data entry operator without any demur. After the revaluation of the answer sheets, another person secured the first rank and the service of the petitioner was terminated. Thus, there is no illegality observed in the impugned order.

Accordingly, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the subject matter, this petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.”

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order.

The writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.