1 2025:CGHC:4202 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2674 of 2018  Shrawan Kumar Rawte S/o S/o Shri Musan Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Pahuna Shop Road, Beside Mission Hospital, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P. S. Rakhi, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Director, Urban Administration And Development Department, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4. Smt. Vipula Soni W/o W/o Shri Santosh Soni Aged About 40 Years R/o Kedarpur, Near Administrative Building, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vipin Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General For respondent No. 3 : Mr. Amit Pandey, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. T.R. Chandrakar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23. 01.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to 2 call the records of case. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned order dated 31.08.2013 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to issue appointment order on the post of Safai Daroga in favour of petitioner, in accordance with law. 10.3 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to an advertisement issued by Nagar Palik Nigam, Ambikapur, for the post of Safai Daroga, the petitioner, respondent No. 4, and other eligible candidates submitted their applications. He would further submit that the required qualification for the post of Safai Daroga was Higher Secondary with Science subject, and there was only one post. According to one of the conditions of the advertisement, the candidates were required to submit certified copies of educational qualifications and experience certificates. He would also submit that respondent No. 3 prepared a merit list in which respondent No. 4 was awarded 20 marks for experience, but the petitioner was not awarded any marks for experience, whereas he worked as an employee of Nagar Nigam from 2004 till 2013. It is contended that an experience certificate has been issued by the competent authority to the petitioner, but the same was not taken into consideration. It is further contended that if the experience certificate had been accepted by respondent No. 3, the petitioner was meritorious to respondent No. 4; therefore, the appointment order of respondent No. 4 may be quashed and a direction may be issued to respondent No. 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment. 3. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the respondents would 3 oppose. They would submit that the requirement, as per condition No. 5 of the advertisement, was that the candidate was required to submit all certified copies of relevant documents, including a certified copy of the experience certificate. They would further submit that from a perusal of the application form submitted by the petitioner, it is apparent that he failed to submit the experience certificate; therefore, respondent No. 3 did not award any marks on the head of experience. They would also submit that the instant petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. A perusal of the advertisement would show that candidates were required to submit a certified copy of all relevant documents, including the experience certificate. The application form of the petitioner would show that he failed to submit a certified copy of his experience certificate; therefore, marks were not awarded for experience to the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 was found meritorious as she was granted 20 marks for experience. The petitioner has not demonstrated that 20 marks on the head of experience was wrongly awarded to respondent No. 4; therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made for interference. 6. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant