Ms. Kirti Sharma v. High Court Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

/ @ Division yam",

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT

BILA$PUR (c.G.) Writ Appeal No. 2'7 of 2014 :

$Kirti Sharma daughter of Shri Hemant APPELLANT/ Sharma, aged about 27 years, resident S.D. Plaza, Near Nadi Gate Pul, MLB Road Gwalior (M.P.) Pin Code : 474009 «z

VERSUS

:

RESPONDENTS :1.

/High Court Chhattisgarh, through its Registrar General, High Court Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (C.G.) / 2.

T he ln-Charge Selection and Appointment Cell, High Court of' Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (co) /'

3.

Mohd.

Jahangir Tigala son Shri Mainuddin Tigala, resident of 550, Sunder Nagar, Nr.

Football House, Pragati Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)492001 4.//Bhupat Sing Séhu S/o Firanta Ram Sahu, / R/o Road No.

Sector No.

3, Behind kali Mandir, Professor Colony, Raipur (C.G.) 492001 /Subodh Mishra Slo late Shri Laiji Mishra, R/o Cooperative Societies Rajmahal Parisar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) 494001 // 6.

Namita Anne Minj D/o Shri Serjus Minj, R/o 21/376 Opp.

Holly Heart School, Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.) 492001 {7/ Jeetendra Pradhan S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Pradhan, Infront Petrolium, Bharat

(?

Purana Power House, Main Road, Torwa, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001 /, 8.

Nixion Daved Lakara S/o Boniface Lakara, / R/o Juna Bilaspur, Police Thana City Kotwali, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001 .

Pratibha Markam D/o Shri Radhe Shyam Markam, R/o Ganga Nagar Ward, Near Balaji Compex, Jagdalpur, Bastar (C.G.) 10./1 Shyam Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Puni Ram Sahu, Occupation Service and A.D.P.O. LS 1 CID Police Headquarter, Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.) 492001 /V 11.

Chandrakala Devi Sahu D/o Shri Bhoiaram Sahu, R/o Tarbahar Industries, Guru Nanak Chowk, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.) 492001 / 12.

Mahesh Babu Sahu Slo Laxmi Narayan Sahu, R/o Vill. Jharpai, P.O.-Donger, Tahsii Mahasamund, District-Madhusudangarh (M.P.) 473287 ,.

WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 SUB-SECTION (1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURTS (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 ... ...

...

. ..

......................

.

.

.

....

. . .. ..

..

..

/E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Eh HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE SHRI P. SAM KOSHY, J Writ Appeal No.27 of 2014 Appellant Ms. Kitti Sharma

VERSUS

Respondents High Court of Chhattisgarh and Others

Present:

Shri Hemant Sharma with Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel the Appellant.

Shri Ashish Shrivastava, counsels for the Respondents No.1 & 2.

Shri Dilman Rati Minz, counsel for respondents No.3 to 12.

J U D G M E N T

(4" of Februéry, 201 5) Per Navin Sinha. Acting Chief Justice .4The present appeal arises from order dated 19.12.2013 dismissing Writ Petition (S) No.41 35 of 2013.

2.

Learned Single Judge held that reservation for SC/ST/OBC vertical reservation.

If belonging category secured merit position in the open category, such candidate was to be treated as an open category candidate and not a reserved category candidate.

It was further observed apart from the same no other ground had been argued on behalf ofthe Petitioner.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that once a candidate applied category and obtained beneflt at one stage selection on that basis, migration to the general category at another stage selection impermissible either at written examination or interview.

Another submission similarly sought be made with regard to the one post in the physically handicapped category. 4.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents opposing the appeal urged it is always Qpen for a reserved category candidate qualifying in the Fm general category to forego the benefit and opt for the reserved category seat instead.

lt was next submitted that the Appellant was not even in the select list but waiting list.

merit panel published on 8.5.2013 and exhausted itself with no occasion for the wait list candidates to be considered.

5.

We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. Appellant does not claim as physically handicapped and even otherwise in view of the issue not having been raised before the Single Judge, we decline to consider the same. P 6.

The next question for our consideration is the rights of a candidate included in the wait list. The law stands settled that a wait listed candidate only has an opportunity to be considered if a candidate in the select list does not join during the life of the panel itself.

ln the present case the vacancies have been exhausted from candidates in the select list itself and the life of the panel has also expired.

7.

The law with regard to the reservations has rightly been applied by Learned Single Judge and we t'md no reason to take any different view of the matter. The reliance by the Appellant on (2009) 5 Supreme

Couit Cases (Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v.

Satyanarayan Sheohare) is completely misconceived.

The facts in that case were that the candidates had applied in the general category and participated in the written examination as general category candidates. In the meantime, after they had applied, the caste to .which they belonged classified as OBC.

lt was peculiar facts of that case directions came to be made to consider them in the OBC category in view saving clause incorporated rules.

case has no s relevance to the present controversy.

8.

In (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 251 (Union of India & Ors v.

Dalbir Singh), the facts were that the OBC caste certificate furnished by the candidate was from a different State not recognized in the State of Punjab.

This case is again distinguishable on its own facts and has no application to the present controversy. The discussion in that background at paragraph-13 has no application to the facts of the present case. 9.

Lastly, reliance was placed on (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 234 (Union India v.

Ramesh Ram) by referring paragraph-42 of the Same.

10.

We fail find any observation therein benefit Appellant and on the contrary, the discussion reiterates the general law with regard to the option available to a reserved category candidate to opt for the reserved category status itself securing a better position rather opting general category post because marks obtained equivalent to a general category candidate.

11.

We may also refer to (2012) 13 Supreme Court Cases 516 (Alok Kumar Pandit v. State of Assam) wherein the controversy sought to be urged before us was expressly considered holding as foilows :- "24.1.

category who is adjudged more meritorious than the open category candidates is entitled choose particular service/cadre/post as per his choice/preference and he cannot be compelled accept appointment to an inferior post leaving the more important service/cadre/post category less meritorious category."

12.

We find no reason interfere with the order under appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- P. sam Sd/_ KOShy Acting Chief Justice J"dge Priya