[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Khileshwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15699-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 274 of 2026
Khileshwari D/o Kishan Kumar Aged About 26 Years R/o- Village-
Bharritola, Post- Chipra, Distt.- Balod (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Managing Director, Chhattisgarh
State Minor Forest Producer Co-Operative Federation Ltd.,
Vandhan Bhawan, Sector- 24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt.-
Raipur (C.G.)
2. Collector Balod, Distt. Balod, (C.G.)
3. Managing Director Distt. Minor Forest Producer Co- Operative
Federation Ltd., Dalli Road, Balod, Distt.- Balod (C.G.)
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate.
Digitally
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate.
MORLE Date:
2026.04.07
17:45:19
+0530
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
07.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.
S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State,
and Mr. Syed Majid Ali, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3,
on I.A. No. 1 of 2026, an application seeking condonation of delay.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the
reasons assigned in the application, this Court is satisfied that sufficient
cause has been shown. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2026 is allowed and
the delay of 56 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the
appellant/writ petitioner against the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by
the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2025 of 2023 (Khileshwari vs.
State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the
appellant came to be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal has
been filed challenging the selection list dated 31.10.2022 issued by
respondent No. 3, whereby candidates were selected for the post of
Manager in the Primary Minor Forest Produce Society, Kusumkasa,
District Balod, under the control of the respondent authorities.
5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the advertisement issued for the said post prescribed the minimum
qualification as 10+2 along with knowledge of computers and did not
stipulate grant of any additional weightage for higher qualifications. It is
contended that although the advertisement referred to the Service
Rules, 2016, it did not specifically provide that candidates possessing
higher qualifications would be given additional marks. Therefore,
according to the appellant, the selection committee could not have
granted weightage beyond the terms of the advertisement.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
appellant applied strictly in terms of the advertisement and
subsequently came to know that additional qualifications were
considered for awarding marks, which were neither disclosed nor
notified. It is contended that such action is arbitrary and contrary to
settled principles governing recruitment. It is also urged that the learned
Single Judge failed to appreciate that the selection process ought to
have been confined strictly to the criteria mentioned in the
advertisement.
7. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge erred in
dismissing the writ petition on the ground of non-submission of certain
documents, without properly appreciating the material available on
record. It is submitted that the conditions of recruitment must strictly
conform to the advertisement and any deviation therefrom vitiates the
selection process. Hence, this appeal.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the selection
process has been conducted strictly in accordance with the governing
rules and there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the
respondents warranting interference.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the appellant
had failed to submit complete academic documents at the relevant time.
It is pointed out that though the appellant had submitted mark-sheets of
B.Sc. (IT) Part-I and Part-II, the mark-sheet of B.Sc. (IT) Part-III was not
submitted during the selection process and has been produced only
subsequently. It is contended that in absence of complete documents,
the appellant's candidature could not be fully considered and she was
not entitled to be awarded marks on that basis.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have
carefully perused the material available on record.
11. Upon consideration, it is evident that the appellant failed to submit
complete and requisite documents at the relevant stage of the selection
process. In recruitment matters, candidates are required to strictly
comply with the conditions of the advertisement and submit all
necessary documents within the prescribed time. Any deficiency in this
regard cannot be permitted to be cured at a later stage to the prejudice
of other candidates.
12. The learned Single Judge has rightly taken note of this aspect and
has held that in absence of submission of complete documents, the
appellant could not be granted the benefit of marks corresponding to
such qualifications. This Court finds no infirmity in the said reasoning.
13. Insofar as the contention regarding consideration of additional
qualifications is concerned, the same does not advance the case of the
appellant, as even otherwise, the appellant herself failed to place
complete material before the authorities at the relevant time. Therefore,
no prejudice can be said to have been caused warranting interference
in the selection process.
14. This Court is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge
has rightly appreciated the facts and the law applicable to the case and
has passed a well-reasoned order, which does not call for any
interference in exercise of intra-Court appellate jurisdiction.
15. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan
