Chattisgarh High Court
Hem Lal Chandrakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 November, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 541 of 2022
Hem Lal Chandrakar S/o Shri Khilawan Lal Chandrakar Aged About 36
Years R/o Housing Board Colony, M I G I I /14, Dharampura No. 1
Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary,
Shankar Nagar, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
3. Examination Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission,
Shankar Nagar, Road, Bhagat Singh Square, Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
WA No. 542 of 2022
Komal Nandanwar D/o Mohan Lal Nandanwar Aged About 35 Years R/o
Housing Board Colony, Mig-Ii/14, Dharampura No. 1, Jagdalpur, District
Bastar (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District
Raipur (C.G.)
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary,
Shankar Nagar, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
3. Examination Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission,
Shankar Nagar, Road, Bhagat Singh Square, Raipur, District Raipur
(C.G.)
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Deputy Advocate
General.
For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate.
For Intervenors : Mr. Shobhit Mishra and Mr. Ashish Beck,
Advocates
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
18.11.2022
Heard Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants. Also
heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for
respondent No. 1 and Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing
for respondents No. 2 and 3 in both the appeals as well as Mr. Shobhit
Mishra and Mr. Ashish Beck, learned counsel, appearing for the Intervenors
in WA No. 541 of 2022.
2. Both these appeals are filed against an order dated 15.09.2022
passed in WPS No. 3606 of 2021 and batch, which includes WPS Nos. No.
3572 of 2021 and 3714 of 2021.
3. WA No. 541 of 2022 arises out of WPS No. 3714 of 2021 and WA No.
542 of 2022 arises out of WPS No. 3572 of 2021.
4. By an order dated 28.07.2022 passed in WPS No. 3606 of 2021 and
batch, the Public Service Commission was directed to declare result within
a period of ten days from that date. Thereafter, by an order dated
18.08.2022, the Public Service Commission was directed to finalize the
selection list in the selection process including the writ petitioners, but the
State was directed not to issue appointment orders till the controversy is set
right by the Court.
5. The Public Service Commission had preferred an appeal being WA
No. 449 of 2022 against the said order dated 18.08.2022. Subsequently,
number of writ appeals came to be filed against the said order 18.08.2022
at the instance of the Public Service Commission. While issuing notice in
WA No. 449 of 2022, by an order dated 23.08.2022, the following portion of
the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.08.2022 was stayed till the
next date fixed:
"PSC is directed to finalize the selection list of the
candidates who have participated in the selection
process including the petitioners, but the State will not
issue their appointment orders till the controversy is set
right by this Court."
6. It was also observed that the learned Single Judge may proceed with
the matter of hearing the cases, and accordingly, directed the Registry to
list the cases on 24.08.2022, as ordered by the learned Single Judge.
7. While disposing of the said WA No. 449 of 2022 and the connected
batch by an order dated 07.11.2022, this Court at paragraphs 13, 14 and
15, observed as follows:
"13. The question as to whether the writ petitioners fulfill
the eligibility criteria in terms of advertisement dated
23.01.2019 is to be determined in the writ petitions. It
appears from the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the
learned Single Judge that a direction was issued to place
the constitution of the Expert Committee for
consideration of the learned Single Judge.
14. In the aforesaid background, direction by way of an
interim measure to finalize the selection list of the
candidates including the writ petitioners amounts to final
relief granted to the writ petitioners, that too, without their
eligibility being determined. It is also noticed that the
learned Single Judge himself records that appointment
orders are not to be issued as the controversy is yet to
be set right by the Court. That being the position,
direction to finalize the selection list was uncalled for.
15. In that view of the matter, the impugned interim
order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.08.2022
cannot be sustained in law, and therefore, the same is
set aside."
8. It is submitted by Mr. Sharma that though by the order dated
23.08.2022 passed in WA No. 449 of 2022, this Court had stayed the order
dated 18.08.2022, whereby direction issued by the learned Single Judge to
the Public Service Commission to finalize the selection list of the
candidates, the learned Single Judge, by the present impugned order dated
15.09.2022 directed appointment orders to be issued subject to final
outcome of the writ petitions, namely, WPS No. 3572 of 2021 and WPS No.
3714 of 2021.
9. Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel for Public Service
Commission submits that though in respect of WPS No. 3572 of 2021
appointment order has been directed to be issued, there is no such order in
respect of WPS No. 3714 of 2021.
10. Though the order dated 15.09.2022 is passed in WPS No. 3606 of
2022 and batch, which includes WPS No. 3714 of 2021 and WPS No. 3572
of 2021, the contents of the order goes to show that there is reference to
only WPS Nos. 3572 of 2021, 3616 of 2021, 3606 of 2021, 3572 of 2021,
3469 of 2021, 5865 of 2022, 4026 of 2021 and 3951 of 2021. There is no
reference to WPS No. 3714 of 2021 in the body of the order and therefore,
we are of the opinion that no order has been passed in the aforesaid writ
petition directing appointment.
11. Admittedly, WPS No. 3572 of 2021 was part of the order dated
18.08.2022, which was stayed by this Court in WA No. 449 of 2022 by an
order dated 23.08.2022. By the said order, direction to finalize the selection
list was stayed. When such an order was holding the field, the impugned
order of the learned Single Judge directing appointment was not called for.
12. Taking that view, the order dated 15.09.2022 insofar as it relates to
WPS No. 3572 of 2021, directing the State to appoint the selected
candidates by allowing the application filed by the State to vacate the order
dated 14.07.2021, is set aside.
13. The writ appeals stand disposed of with the above observations and
directions.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Sanjay Agrawal)
Chief Justice Judge
Hem
