Nita Alsare vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State.

The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 7543 of 2018 (Smt. Nita Alsare vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner for setting aside the order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the respondent No. 1, by which the promotion of the writ petitioner on the post of Naib Tahasildar from Assistant Grade-II has been cancelled and she was again posted as Assistant Grade-II in the District Office, Kabirdham, has been dismissed.

Undisputed facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued on 04.03.2014 for promotion on the post of Naib Tahsildar which was to be filled up from Graduate Patwari, Revenue Inspector and other Clerical staff posted in the sub-ordinate office of Commissioner Land Revenue, Divisional Commissioner, Rajsava Mandal, Collector Office and its sub-ordinate offices. The writ petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste Category. As per the advertisement, the date of submission of form was from 15.03.2014 to 24.03.2014. There were total 57 posts laying vacant, out of which 28 posts for Revenue Inspector/Patwari, 12 posts for unreserved, 4 posts for Scheduled Caste, 9 posts for Scheduled Tribes and 3 posts for Other Back Ward Class and 29 posts was reserved for clerical grade employee, out of which 12 posts were reserved for unreserved, 4 posts for Scheduled Caste, 9 posts for Scheduled Tribes and 4 posts for Other Back Ward Class. For qualifying the examination, candidates should have secured 50% marks which is compulsory in each question papers. The advertisement further provides selection process for appointment of Naib Tahsildar and paragraphs 5 to 7 of the advertisement are extracted below:-

Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has committed grave illegality while dismissing the writ petition. As such, the present writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.

On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State, supports the impugned order.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

Learned Single Judge vide order dated 01.11.2022 dismissed the writ petition of the appellant by observing as follows:

“12. So far as the relaxation marks is concerned, while passing the impugned order dated 30.10.2018 Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management has observed in its order as under:-

From bare perusal of the Scheme it is evident that 50% marks or more marks have to be acquired by the candidate then his name will be included in the list. The petitioner belonged to S.T. category, the requisite cut off marks for S.T. category is 45% of the marks whereas the petitioner has secured 40% of marks in the first paper and in second paper she has secured 45.98% of marks, therefore, she has not cleared one paper, as such she was not eligible for appointment and inadvertently she was given appointment on the post of Naib Tahsildar. The State has taken specific stand that petitioner is not able to get minimum qualifying marks in one paper even after getting relaxation as per the circular of erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh dated 15.06.1995. Thus her appointment on the post of Naib Tahsildar is not in accordance with the law and same has not been rebutted by the petitioner by filing the rejoinder, as such it is quite vivid that petitioner is not eligible to be appointed on the post of Naib Tahsildar still she has been appointed which has rightly been corrected by reverting to her original post of Assistant Grade-II.

The record would further show that the State has examined the case of Smt. Manjulata Sharma in terms of the order passed by this Court and has assigned the reason while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Considering the fact that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed on the post of Naib Tahsildar the impugned order dated 30.10.2018 has been issued. Thus, the impugned order has rightly been passed by the respondent No. 1 and respondent authority has not committed any error or illegality which warrants inference by this Court.

Further contention raised by the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing while passing the impugned order is incorrect submission of fact as in pursuance of notice dated 26.10.2018 (Annexure P/1) which has been issued for appearance of the petitioner on 29.10.2018 the petitioner has appeared before the Secretary as reflected from the order sheet dated 29.10.2018 as such this contention also deserves to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected.

In view of the above analysis, this Court finds that the impugned order which is being challenged by the petitioner does not suffer from any illegality. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.”

Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we find that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in right perspective. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we see no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.