1 2025:CGHC:18076-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 257 of 2025 Shrawan Kumar Rawte S/o Shri Musan Ram Aged About 35 Years (Now Aged About 40 Years), R/o Pahuna Shop Road, Beside Mission Hospital, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S.- Rakhi, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Urban Administration And Development Department, New Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Vipula Soni W/o Shri Santosh Soni Aged About 40 Years R/o Kedarpur, Near Administrative Building, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Devesh G. Kela on behalf of Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate and Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.04.24 12:52:22 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Devesh G. Kela, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for respondents / State as well as Mr. Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 23.01.2025 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2674 of 2018 (Shrawan Kumar Rawte vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is working as Safai Daroga on daily wages basis under respondent Municipal Corporation since 01.11.2004. On 23.05.2013, the respondent no. 3 has issued an advertisement for direct recruitment on the post of Safai Daroga including other vacant posts under respondent Corporation and the educational qualification for the post of Safai Daroga was prescribed as higher secondary pass in science faculty. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the appellant had applied for appointment on the post of Safai Daroga and also 3 submitted experience certificate issued by the competent authority. The respondent no. 4 had also applied for the said post. According to the advertisement, the bonus marks was prescribed for experience. The respondent no. 4 was not having any experience, despite this, the respondent no. 3 has given 20 marks to the respondent no. 4 for holding experience of 10 years. The respondent no. 3 has issued merit list, whereby given 50.55 marks to the respondent no. 3 including additional 20 marks for holding 10 years experience, though no mark has been given to the appellant for experience and on the basis of same illegal marks, the impugned appointment order has been issued in favour of respondent no. 4 on 23.05.2013. When the appellant came to know that the respondent no. 4 has been given appointment on the post of Safai Daroga, he made enquiries about respondent no. 4 and he came to know that she has never worked in the department of cleaning, nor worked as Safai Daroga. Thereafter the appellant submitted application under Right to Information Act regarding the experience certificate submitted by the respondent no. 4 with the application for the post of Safai Daroga. In response to the application of the appellant, information was supplied with covering letter dated 29.08.2017. In the point no. 2 of the information dated 26.08.2017, it was stated that the experience certificate relates to personal information of respondent no. 4 and therefore the same cannot be provided under Right to Information Act. After knowing the above illegality committed by the 4 respondent no. 3, the appellant has applied for supply of relevant documents regarding selection process and the same have been provided in the month of August, 2017. After obtaining the aforesaid documents, the appellant filed Writ Petition (S) No. 2674 of 2018 before the learned Single Judge and vide impugned order dated 23.01.2025 the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by holding that the appellant has not filed the certified copy of his experience certificate, therefore the marks were not awarded to the appellant for experience. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is bad in law, being arbitrary and erroneous. The respondent no. 4 is not holding any experience, despite this, only for providing undue advantages, the respondent no. 3 has been given additional 20 marks, only for appointing her on the post of Safai Daroga. The appellant was having experience of 9 years at the time of advertisement and he has duly submitted experience certificate along with his application form, despite this, no mark was given to the appellant for experience. If the additional 20 marks would have been deducted from the total marks of the respondent no. 4, then she would have secured 30.55 marks and if the appellant would have given 20 marks for holding experience, then the appellant would have been secured 58.61 marks, which is the highest marks. The head of department of respondent no. 3 has issued experience certificate on 07.06.2013 and on that day, the appellant has sent the 5 application form along with other documents including experience certificate, therefore due to bonafide mistake, the appellant could not mention the document experience certificate in his application form, however in the column of experience, he has mentioned his experience from 2004 to till date as mentioned in the experience certificate. The appellant has applied under RTI Act for supply of documents submitted by the respondent no. 4 and the same has been provided to the appellant, but no experience certificate of respondent no. 4 has been provided to the appellant, which itself appears that she had no experience. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which, no interference is sought. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner observing that 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 writ petitioner would show that he failed to submit a 6 certified copy of his experience certificate; therefore, marks were not awarded for experience to the writ petitioner. Respondent No. 4 was found meritorious as she was granted 20 marks for experience. The writ petitioner has not demonstrated that 20 marks on the head of experience was wrongly awarded to respondent No. 4; therefore, the petition of the writ petitioner was dismissed. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet