Prashant Dubey vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking for the following reliefs:

“(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 24.06.2015 and directed the respondent to conduct fresh departmental promotion examination after prepared the confidential report of petitioner as well as others, who have take part in the departmental promotion examination.

(ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with costs of the petition.”

Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioners are that, the respondent/State published advertisement on 04.03.2014 for direct recruitment to the post of Naib-Tahsildar from the departmental candidates, who were belonging to the cadre of Revenue Inspector/Patwari and Clerk. According to the said advertisement, total 29 posts of Naib-Tahsildar were to be filled up from the cadre of clerk out of which 12 posts are unreserved, 4 posts for SC, 9 posts for ST and 4 posts for OBC and out of 28 posts of Naib-Tahsildar were filled up from the cadre of Revenue Inspector/Patwari out of which 12 posts for unreserved, 4 posts for SC, 9 posts for ST and 3 posts for OBC and in the advertisement, there is mode of selection process, in which it has been mentioned that written test examination has been conducted by the Vyapam and it has also been mentioned that two questions paper have conducted through written examination and criteria of selection is necessary to get 50 marks out of 100 marks for the very purpose to get success in the written examination for all categories and all candidates.

The petitioner came to know that the respondent/State has prepared a list without disclosing five years confidential reports in the list. In the list prepared by the respondent/State, intentionally five years confidential reports have not been shown by the authority concerned because due to non-showing of five years confidential reports the candidates whose confidential reports have already been submitted by the authority concerned under whose supervision the employee have worked, that very reason, some of the employees namely Sanjay Kumar Minz and Karuna Aher whose confidential reports have already been submitted by their official superior after end of financial year that is evident from the record, but said candidates manipulated their confidential reports as per their own choice and that can be possible because Smt. Karuna Aher is working in the establishment Section and she not only removed five years confidential reports which have been actually submitted before the authority concerned but she also managed forged and fabricated confidential reports, which she prepared on her own writing and likewise Sanjay Minz whose confidential report of the year 2010 has already been submitted by the officer concerned he got prepared forged confidential reports for the very purpose to get promotion through the departmental promotion committee. In here it is pertinent to note the respondent has not prepared any confidential report of the petitioner though according to the knowledge of the petitioner the respondent never served each year confidential report to anyone of the Patwari though there is specific circulars dated 16.12.2010, 08.02.2013 and 07.10.2013.

Very reason inspite of the qualified in the written examination with more than qualified requisite cut out 50% marks. The respondent has not considered the name of the petitioner for the departmental promotion inspite of the fact that the name of the petitioner has been shown in the list but due to not prepared confidential report of the petitioner, the deprived from their departmental promotion. According to the knowledge of the petitioner the tempering in the confidential report has not only been made in Korba District but the same is also made in other district.

The respondent/State in one hand considered the claims of those candidates who are not actually secured A+ in their confidential reports, but they also considered the claims of those candidates who have not got 50 marks in their written test examinations, though according to the advertisement, the persons who have not secured 50 marks their claim cannot be considered for selection on the post of Naib Tahsildar. In this appointment process without any relaxation they cannot be entitled any kind of relaxation but the respondent has given the relaxation to K.K. Lahare who not secure the 50% marks and consider his name for appointment for the post of Nayab Tahsildar. 10% relaxation to SC, ST or OBC candidate is not applicable in departmental promotion examination.

The respondent/State has issued the order dated 24.6.2015. The petitioner after knew about the fact that the respondent/State has acted in such a manner by doing manipulation in the confidential reports and considered the names of the candidates who have not secured 50 marks in their written test examinations, so he filed the representation and pointed out the irregularities which alleged to have committed by the respondents in departmental promotion. The respondent before whom all the irregularities have been pointed out including the irregularities by which the respondent has considered the cases of SC, ST and OBC in the seat of General category, though it is well settled that the persons who are belonging to SC, ST and OBC their names ought to be considered for promotion against reserved post of SC, ST and OBC and unreserved is also restricted up to their reserved seat and not to be considered their claims for unreserved seat, but in the present departmental promotion examination, contrary to the rules against the unreserved category, names of the unreserved category candidates have been considered by giving some relaxation to those candidates in the written examination, though relaxation in the written examination is not at all permissible in the eye of law.

According to general book circular three officers has to prepare to confidential report, so not a single confidential report is in format of general book circular. The respondents also contrary to the reserved rules deprived the right of the candidates who have secured more marks in the written test examination and in spite of the fact that without mentioning in selection process, post of unreserved candidates has been filled by other than unreserved candidates and that is clear violation of the constitutional right of the unreserved candidates. The respondent/State in the year 2014 advertised post, but instead of considering the post up to 2014, they have invited applications according to the strength of candidates up to 2008, which have been vacant up to 2008 and at present the respondents are going to fulfill vacancy up to 2014 vacant posts.

The action of the respondents in relation to departmental promotion examination for the post of Naib Tahsildar is contrary to their own selection process and looking to the fact that the candidates as per their own choice put A+ in their confidential reports though as to why A+ has given to the said candidates it is nowhere mentioned in their confidential reports and looking to the fact that official superior under whose supervision the employee has worked their confidential reports have been concealed and subsequently, according to their own choice confidential reports have been prepared and that very reason in the joint merit list, written examination marks and confidential report marks have not been shown in the composite merit list, though that is necessary. Hence, this petition.

As per the respondent/State, the aforesaid promotion has been conducted strictly in accordance to the guidelines of State Government (Annexure R/1). The petitioners are claiming relief to set-aside the impugned order dated 24.06.2015 (Annexure P/1). It is clear from this order that as many as 27 candidates were promoted from Revenue Inspector/Patwari category and 24 candidates were promoted from Clerk cadre. The petitioners have not impleaded other promotees as party respondents. It is clear from Annexure R/1 that name of Prashant Kumar Dubey (petitioner No.1) find place at S.No. 264 and he secured 201.94 marks and name of Mithlesh Kumar Verma find place at S.No. 352 and he secured 111.88 marks.

The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of “Mathura Prasad Kashyap” (supra) observed in para 19 as under:

“19. It is also to be seen that during pendency of both the writ petitions the entire selection process is over and the persons have been appointed/ promoted on the post of Naib Tahsildar. None of the appointees/ promotees have been impleaded as necessary party in these petitions. It is the well settled proposition of law that no adjudication can be made behind the back of the party (See : Ranjan Kumar etc. etc. v. State of Bihar and others, 2014 (3) Supreme 646)”

Counsel for the parties jointly submit that the facts and issue involved in this petition is identical to the one which has been decided by this Court being Writ Petition (S) No. 201 of 2016 (Rupesh Gurudiwan v. State of Chhattisgarh & others).

It is clear that the respondents followed the reservation policy and selection process, but as per petitioners, reservation policies are for direct selection and not for promotional post and as per Annexure R/1 reservation has been given on the promotional post.

Looking to the said facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the respondents applied proper reservation policy as per Annexure R/1 and issued Annexure P/1. The petitioners have sought relief for setting aside the impugned order dated 24.06.2015 (Annexure P/1), but other promotees have not been impleaded as necessary parties, therefore, this petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.