Yogesh Puri Goswami vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1180 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                    NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            WA No. 171 of 2020

1.    Yogesh Puri Goswami S/o Suresh Puri Goswami, Aged About 35
      Years R/o Village Jaitpuri, Post Banki, Tahsil and District Mungeli
      Chhattisgarh
2.    Tileshwar Kumar Nirmalkar, S/o Uttam Nirmalkar, Aged About 30
      Years R/o Village And Post Banki, Tahsil and District Mungeli
      Chhattisgarh
                                                            ---- Appellants
                                 Versus
1.    State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education
      Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District
      Raipur Chhattisgarh
2.    The Director Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya, (Selection) Naya Raipur
      Chhattisgarh
                                                          ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) __________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. C. K. Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Astha Shukla, Government Advocate ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Gautam Chourdiya, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

07.03.2022

Heard Mr. C.K. Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellants. Also

heard Mr. R. M. Solapurkar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for

the respondents.

2. This appeal is preferred against an order dated 19.12.2019 passed

by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 10721 of 2019. The order reads

as follows :

"1. Heard.

2. The instant petition is filed on the ground that the

petitioners were the aspiring candidates for the post of

Assistant Teachers. An advertisement was made in the

month of April, 2019, whereby different teachers were

to be appointed in the different grades. The petitioners

claim for the post of Assistant Teacher Grade-III.

3. It is contended that one of the condition of the

advertisement was that the candidate should have

50% marks in the graduation along with B.Ed. Degree.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

the petitioners are the holder of D.Ed degree and if

such condition of the advertisement is accepted then

the persons who are D.Ed. Degree holder would be

automatically eliminated, therefore, such condition in

the advertisement is irrational.

4. Learned State counsel would submit that the

examination was already held on 25.08.2019 and the

petitioners have appeared in the exam knowing fully

well the condition of the advertisement, therefore, they

cannot challenge the same.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. The facts suggest that the petitioners pursuant to

the advertisement in the month of April, 2019 wherein

all the conditions were laid down appeared in the

examination held on 25.08.2019. The conditions for

the appointment having been exhibited and the

petitioners knowing fully well appeared in the same

cannot turn down and challenge the said on the

ground that one of the conditions of the advertisement

was erroneous which caused deprivation to the

petitioners without their consideration. At this moment

challenge to the condition of advertisement would

amount change the rules of game after started. The

petitioners otherwise also cannot challenge the same

on the principles of acquiescence and law of estoppel.

7. The petition has no merit. It is accordingly

dismissed."

3. As noticed by the learned Single Judge, the examination was held on

25.08.2019. However, it must be observed, at this juncture, that the

observation of the learned Single Judge that the petitioners had appeared

in the examination is not correct and therefore, the reasoning assigned for

dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that the appellants had

appeared in the examination cannot be sustained.

4. But, there is another facet of the matter.

5. The petitioners had filed the writ application only on 04.12.2019,

almost three months after the examination was conducted, praying for

permitting them to participate in the recruitment process.

6. After the examination was conducted, the question of permitting the

petitioners to take part in the recruitment process cannot arise. The

petitioners had approached the Court belatedly and therefore, even though

we have observed that the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be

sustained on the reasoning assigned, no case is made out for grant of

reliefs as prayed for by the petitioners in the writ petition.

7. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. No cost.

                         Sd/-                                             Sd/-
                (Arup Kumar Goswami)                              (Gautam Chourdiya)
                     Chief Justice                                       Judge


Chandra