Smt. Padma Rajak v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 5603 of 2012 Smt. Padma Rajak W/o Shri Hemant Rajak, Aged about 29 years, R/o Village Keshlur, Tahsil Tokapal, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh at present R/o Jawaharpara, Kanker, Police Station and Tahsil Kanker, Distt. Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Collector, Jagdalpur,Distt.

Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

3. Ku. Malti Mourya D/o Bhawani Mourya, Middle School Chokawada, (National Rural Education Mission), Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

4. Ku. Madhu Kashyap D/o Lakhmuram Kashyap, Middle School Bandapara, (National Rural Education Mission), Lohandiguda, Distt.

Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents For Petitioner :- Mr. D.N. Prajapati and Ms. Vedagni Jangele, Advocates For State :- Mr. Avinash Singh, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board

23/09/2021

1. Petitioner herein has called in question the legality, validity and correctness of select list dated 01/12/2012 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 2 for the post of Peon in the recruitment held for filling up various posts of Class III and Class IV category.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner despite securing more marks than respondents No. 3 and 4 has not been selected whereas respondents No. 3 and 4 have been selected, which is arbitrary and illegal, as such, the impugned select list deserves to be quashed.

3. Learned State counsel would submit that petitioner only applied for the post of Chowkidar whereas petitioners No. 3 and 4 applied for the post of Peon and they have selected also for the said post and the impugned select list is for the post of Peon not the for the post of Chowkidar to which petitioner applied to, therefore, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the appointment of respondents No. 3 and 4 on the post of Peon.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records.

5. Admittedly, petitioner applied for the post of Chowkidar which is apparent from her application form (Annexure R/1), therefore, she has no locus, authority and jurisdiction to question the select list (Annexure P/1) for the post of peon and question the appointment of respondents No. 3 and 4 who have been selected for the post of Peon. As such, I do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition.

6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet