Sarita Dwivedi vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Appointment of the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in Janpad Panchayat, Manendragarh, District Koriya, was set aside by the

Additional Collector, Manendragarh, which has been affirmed by the Director (Panchayat) by the impugned order and as such, the order of the

Director (Panchayat) has been called in question by way of this writ petition.

Janpad Panchayat, Manendragarh advertised recruitment for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in Arts subject for total nine posts in unreserved

category out of which three posts were reserved for female in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Bharti Tatha Seva Ki

Sharte) Niyam, 2007 and last date for submission of application form (OMR Sheet) was 9-2-2008 and the date of examination was 30-3-2008.

Essential qualification, admittedly and undisputedly, as per clause 2.5 of the advertisement, was the candidate must have passed 12th class

examination and must have passed D.Ed. Examination. Clause 4.3 of the advertisement prescribes that if the post is not filled up from D.Ed. holder,

B.Ed. degree holder will be considered. The petitioner and respondent No.5 both submitted the application form within time and both have filled the

OMR sheet and clearly declared that they were not having the degree of D.Ed. Thereafter, on 30-3-2008, both the petitioner and respondent No.5

appeared in the examination for Shiksha Karmi Grade-III conducted by the Professional Exmaination Board and result was declared by the said

Board. The petitioner obtained 47.47 marks with subject rank of 69, whereas respondent No.5 obtained 53.54 marks with subject rank of 32.

Accordingly, the Board prepared merit list giving preference to those candidates who possess degree of D.Ed. and thereafter, list was prepared for

non-D.Ed. i.e. candidates having B.Ed. degree. Thereafter, merit list was sent to the concerned Zila Panchayat and Janpad Panchayat on 9-6-2008

and time up to 13-6-2008 was provided to the candidates for raising objections before the Janpad Panchayat regarding merit list.

Upon consideration, from D.Ed. candidates, out of three posts of unreserved female, two posts were filed up by the candidates who possess degree

of D.Ed. and only one post remained vacant and that has to be filled up from B.Ed. Candidate. Therefore, Janpad Panchayat, Manendragarh prepared

list of candidates from non-D.Ed. candidates/B.Ed. candidates (subject Arts, female, unreserved) category, on the basis of merit in which the

petitioner was appointed by order dated 4-7-2008 at Janpad Panchayat, Manendragarh after documents verification and on 25-7-2008, she was

appointed on probation for two years and she joined the service. Thereafter, on 26-7-2008, respondent No.5 raised objection before the Additional

Collector, Manendragarh and on her application, the Additional Collector registered Revenue Case No.14 A/89/2007-08 as suo motu revision under

Section 91 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam read with Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Appeal and Revision Rules, 1995 and

issued show cause notice to the petitioner and to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Manendragarh. Ultimately, on 8-10-2008, the

Additional Collector passed order by setting aside the appointment order of the petitioner dated 25-7-2008 and directed for issuance of appointment

order in favour of respondent No.5 which the petitioner challenged by way of appeal before the Director (Panchayat) and the Director (Panchayat)

has dismissed the appeal, however, given liberty to make application to the concerned Janpad Panchayat, if the candidate lower in rank has been

appointed, but the petitioner did not move application and directly filed writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

calling in question the order of the Director (Panchayat) confirming the order of the Addition Collector cancelling her appointment on the ground that

her appointment is strictly in accordance with law and she has rightly made application for appointment to the Janpad Panchayat which has been

granted and which is not fault on her part, therefore, her appointment cannot be cancelled.

All the respondents have filed return supporting the appointment of respondent No.5 stating that she being more meritorious candidate of non-D.Ed.

on the basis of B.Ed. Qualification, she is entitled for the appointment so made and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

Mr. Faisal Akhtar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Karmi

Grade-III was strictly in accordance with law as right in time, application was made vide Annexure P-3 and she is entitled for appointment which has

been considered and appointed, whereas respondent No.5 did not make any application for her appointment, as such, the writ petition deserves to be

allowed quashing the order passed by the Additional Collector and the Director (Panchayat). He makes alternative submission that if the order of the

Director (Panchayat) is confirmed, liberty be granted to the petitioner to make application before the Janpad Panchayat, it be kept open to the

petitioner.

Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate appearing for the State / respondents No.1 to 3, and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar and Mr. Manoj

Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 and 5, respectively, would submit that the appointment of respondent No.5 is in accordance

with law, as she is admittedly and undisputedly, more meritorious than the petitioner on the non-D.Ed. / B.Ed. degree holder and therefore the writ

petition deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the material available

on record with utmost circumspection.

Essential qualification for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III is, the candidate must have passed 12th class examination and must

possess D.Ed. degree, as per clause 2.5 of the advertisement. Further, as per clause 4.3, it was also provided that if the post is not filled up from

D.Ed. degree holder, it will be filled from amongst the B.Ed. Degree holder. In OMR Sheet application form, the petitioner and respondent No.5, both

declared that they are not having D.Ed. degree, however, in the OMR sheet it was indicated that they are B.Ed. Degree holders, as such, it was not in

dispute that they were not having D.Ed. degree and secondly, their case was not considered under D.Ed. degree holder. When selection and

appointment was made only for one post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in unreserved category female, which was left, that was decided to be filled

from amongst B.Ed. degree holders. Admittedly and undisputedly, the petitioner obtained 47.47 marks and her subject rank was 69, whereas

respondent No.5 obtained 53.54 marks and her subject rank was 32. As such, on the basis of record, it could not be disputed by learned counsel for

the petitioner that respondent No.5 was standing on the merit list at serial No.32 by obtaining 53.54 marks and the petitioner stood at serial No.69 in

the merit list by obtaining 47.47 marks, as such, respondent No.5 was more meritorious, but some how, respondent No.4 called the petitioner for

verification of certificates and her certificates / documents were verified and she was appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III ignoring the

candidature of respondent No.5.

The contention made on behalf of the petitioner at this stage that the petitioner having made objection which respondent No.5 did not make and

therefore the candidature of respondent No.5 has rightly been rejected, deserves to be noticed for rejection, as respondent No.5 did not make any

objection prior to 13-6-2008. Mr. Bhagat, learned State counsel, pointed out that the objection invited is with regard to preparation of merit list to the

examination result declared by the VYAPAM and it has nothing to do with the candidature of the petitioner and respondent No.5 in B.Ed. Category

which appears to be correct also. Once respondent No.5 has made entry in the OMR Sheet clearly indicating that she is non-D.Ed. and having B.Ed.

degree, then any other objection, she was not supposed to make. When less meritorious candidate / petitioner was appointed, respondent No.5 made

application to the Additional Collector on 26-7-2008 in which after hearing the petitioner, her appointment was cancelled and the Additional Collector

directed to appoint respondent No.5 which has been affirmed by the Director (Panchayat).

From the aforesaid analysis, it is quite apparent that respondent No.5 was more meritorious candidate than the petitioner having B.Ed. degree and

therefore for one vacant post, the candidature of respondent No.5 should have been considered first and in case she is not available or she is not

willing to be appointed or her documents were not found in order, then other candidate below respondent No.5 could have been considered. Here,

respondent No.5 is admittedly and undisputedly more meritorious and the petitioner being less meritorious has been appointed which has rightly been

set aside and rightly been affirmed which is not contrary to material avialable on record. As such, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the

order of the Director (Panchayat) is hereby affirmed.

At this stage, Mr. Akhtar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Director (Panchayat) had already granted liberty to the petitioner to

make application to the Janpad Panchayat for her appointment on the ground that one Abhay Tiwari who has secured less marks than the petitioner

has been appointed, that may be kept open to the petitioner.

It is made clear that the order of the Additional Collector / Director has not been set aside by this Court as such, liberty is granted to the petitioner

to the extent that as per order of the Director (Panchayat) to make application to the Janpad Panchayat is still open, as on account of pendency of

writ petition, the petitioner could not avail the liberty granted. As such, since the order of the Additional Collector / Director is not being interfered, the

petitioner is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost(s).