Sanjay Kumar Chauhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 17 Chatt

                                       1


                                                                        NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                              WA No. 311 of 2022

Sanjay Kumar Chauhan S/o Shri Harnarayan Chauhan, aged about 30
(now 40) years, R/o village Madkada, Post Jhabadi, Tahsil Kasdol, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                 ---- Appellant

                                    Versus

1.   State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Health &
Family Welfare, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2.   The Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

3.   Chief Medical Officer, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

4.   Amit Kumar Suryawanshi S/o Ashram Suryawanshi R/o Near Water
Tank, Primary School, Near Shiv Mandir, Suryawanshi Mohalla, Torwa,
Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                            ---- Respondents

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Ms. Astha Shukla, Government Advocate.

For Respondent No. 4 : None

Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Mr. Arvind Singh Chandel, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

02/01/2023 Heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the

appellant. Also heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate,

appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3.

2. Office note dated 23.12.2022 indicates that notice on respondent No.

4 has been served. However, there is no appearance on behalf of the

respondent No. 4.

3. This appeal is presented against an order dated 19.04.2022 passed

by the learned Single Judge dismissing WP(S) No. 3503 of 2012, preferred

by the appellant.

4. An advertisement dated 29.06.2011 was issued by the Chief Medical

& Health Officer, Bilaspur, inviting applications, amongst others, for filling

up 7, 24, 18 and 8 posts of Pharmacist Grade II in respect of general,

scheduled caste (SC), scheduled tribe (ST) and other backward class

(OBC) category, respectively, totalling 57 in number.

5. The appellant claims to be belonging to SC category.

6. According to clause 2 of part B of the advertisement, the requisite

caste certificate pertaining to SC, ST and OBC duly verified by the

prescribed authority of the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee has to be

filed. The last date for submission of the forms in terms of clause 14 of part

B of the advertisement was fixed on 15.07.2011 and it was also indicated

therein that no application shall be entertained beyond the aforesaid

period. The admitted position is that the appellant submitted the certificate

relating to caste as required under clause 2 of part B of the advertisement

on 31.10.2011. It is also necessary to indicate at this juncture that the said

certificate of the High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee is dated 07.07.2011.

The appellant had not enclosed the said certificate alongwith the

application form, though apparently issued at a point of time prior to the

last date of submission of the application form and what the appellant had

submitted was a certificate (undated) issued by the Sub Divisional Officer.

No explanation has been provided in the writ application as to why the

aforesaid certificate dated 07.07.2011 was not enclosed when the

application form was submitted by the appellant. The learned Single Judge,

in that view of the matter, observed that since the certificate was submitted

on 31.10.2011 i.e. much after the last date of submission of the application

form was over, the same was not rightly taken into consideration for

selection under the SC category. The learned Single Judge also observed

that as the selected candidates in the SC category were not made parties,

the petition also suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties and

accordingly, held that the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief on

that count also. Accordingly, the writ petition came to be dismissed.

7. Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the

appellant submits that though the appellant had not submitted the SC

certificate as required under the advertisement, nonetheless, he was

considered to be eligible for consideration and to buttress the point, he has

drawn our attention to page 26 of the writ petition papers. After the

provisional select list was published on 24.10.2011, according to Mr.

Shrivastava, an opportunity was granted to the candidates to produce

additional papers/objections and accordingly, the appellant had submitted

the caste certificate as certified by the High Level Caste Scrutiny

Committee on 31.10.2011. It is submitted by him that the appellant had

been wrongly placed in the list of general category candidates instead of

SC category candidates and the appellant having obtained 66.10% marks,

was distinctly entitled to be appointed as Pharmacist Grade II, as except

serial No. 1 of the said list pertaining to SC candidates, all others had

secured less than 66.10% marks. He contends that the view taken by the

learned Single Judge that the writ petition suffers from non-joinder of

parties is not correct inasmuch as the petitioner had arrayed the last

candidate in the merit list, who is the respondent No. 4 in the writ petition

as well as in the writ appeal, and if the appellant is included in the list of SC

category candidates, then, only he has to make way to accommodate the

appellant.

8. What has emerged from the materials on record is that the appellant

did not submit the requisite certificate in terms of the advertisement, though

the certificate is stated to have been issued on 07.07.2011. The fact that

the appellant was initially held to be eligible would not confer the appellant

an indefeasible right to be considered for appointment under the SC

category as the eligibility has to be subject to verification in the final stages

of the selection process. It is also noticed that in the provisional select list,

it is indicated that the appellant has not submitted the prescribed SC caste

certificate. No material has been placed on record by the appellant to

demonstrate that an opportunity was granted to submit documents, etc.

after publication of the provisional select list. Therefore, we are unable to

take a view other than the view taken by the learned Single Judge with

regard to ineligibility of the appellant to be considered under the category

of SC candidates.

9. So far as the finding of the learned Single Judge that the petition

suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties, we find substance in the

argument of Mr. Shrivastava. It was not necessary for the appellant to

array all the selected candidates of SC category as, in any view of the

matter, if the appellant was to be accommodated, only the last candidate in

the merit list would have to make way. He having been made party-

respondent, it cannot be said that there was failure on the part of the

appellant to array necessary parties.

10. However, as we have concurred with the reasoning of the learned

Single Judge regarding ineligibility of the appellant to be considered as a

SC category candidate, the instant appeal will have to be dismissed and

accordingly, the same is dismissed.

                        Sd/-                                       Sd/-
                (Arup Kumar Goswami)                     (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                    CHIEF JUSTICE                               JUDGE




Amit