Prasoon Goyal vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

“a. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition by holding that before issuing Annexure P/2 walk in interview dated 25.01.2023 no rule of Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012 (Annexure P/1) rule 4(2) &(3) further rule 5(2) has also not fulfilled, because contract has to be filled up from retired government servants and not otherwise, therefore it be held that walk in interview dated 25.01.2023 (Annexure P/2) is illegal, without authority, unwarranted, premature, because rule 4 & 5 were not followed as stated above, therefore petition be allowed with costs.

b. Cost of the petition be awarded and

c. Any other relief or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded.”

Brief facts of the case, is that, respondent No. 1 has framed the Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012, under which Rule 4(2) and (3) prescribe that a vacancy of a sanctioned post can be filled only if it is likely to remain vacant for one year or more due to unavoidable reasons, or if, after advertisement, no government servant meeting the minimum eligibility is available, or if the post cannot be filled by promotion for unavoidable reasons, in such cases, the approval of the General Administration Department is mandatory. However, in this case, no such approval was obtained. Moreover, contrary to Rule 5(2), which mandates inviting retired government servants, fresh candidates were called instead. Therefore, the walk-in interview advertisement dated 25.01.2023 is illegal, unauthorized, and liable to be quashed. Hence, this petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the petitioner should be granted the opportunity to submit an application or representation before the relevant authorities. If there exists any vacancy or post that corresponds to the petitioner’s qualifications, the petitioner ought to be allowed to apply for the same. It is further requested that the authorities be directed to duly consider and decide upon such application or representation in a fair and timely manner, ensuring that the petitioner’s eligibility and qualifications are appropriately evaluated in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.

On the other hand learned counsel representing the State has firmly opposed this position, presenting arguments grounded in legal principles and precedent to substantiate their stance. They contend that the matter at hand warrants a different interpretation or outcome, emphasizing considerations that, in their view, outweigh those advanced by the opposing party. The State’s counsel has meticulously articulated their objections, underscoring the implications of adopting the alternative perspective and advocating for the upholding of the current legal framework or procedural posture in question.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Taking into account the submissions presented by the parties and acknowledging that if the relevant post is available and the petitioner is deemed suitable in all respects, the authorities are hereby directed to duly consider his application or representation. However, given that the appointment in question is on a contractual basis, initially set for a period of one year with the possibility of extension, I find that at this juncture, the petitioner’s case does not warrant a favorable consideration on its merits. Therefore, while the application may be revisited in the future contingent upon fulfillment of the necessary criteria, therefore, at present I am not considered present to be a fit case for considering the merits of the application.

With this observation and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of.