1 2025:CGHC:6340 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2949 of 2018 1 - Khemraj Dhurve S/o Ishwar Singh Dhurve Aged About 21 Years R/o Chhirpani, Post Kodwagodan, Tehsil Pandariya District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner, Mahatama Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Indravati Bhawan Block II, 2nd Floor, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Kabirdham, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 5 - Project Offcer, Mahatama Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Zila Panchayat Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 6 - Dhanesh S/o Mohit Markam Aged About 25 Years R/o Bhira, Bhandhatola, Tehsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate. For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate. Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner declaring him as eligible and suitable to be appointed to the post of Technical Assistant (Contract). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the appointment of the respondent no.6 for to post of Technical Assistant (Contract) and name of the petitioner may kindly be considered in place of respondent no.6 as the petitioner has secured/ obtained more marks from the respondent no.6. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. An advertisement was issued by respondent No.2 for appointment to various posts on contractual basis on 17.11.2017 and the last date for submission of application form was 5.12.2017. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process and submitted his application form for the post of Technical Assistant, but his candidature was rejected as he could not secure the minimum marks in the Computer Skill Test. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner was meritorious and deliberately, he was not awarded 3 marks in Computer Skill Test. He would submit that the appointment of respondent No.6 may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that the appointments pursuant to advertisement were made for a period of three years, which has already been elapsed after completion of three years in 2020-21. Therefore, the petition has become infructuous. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the appointments were made for a period of three years only, the last date for submission of application form was 5.12.2017, and it can be presumed that the appointments were made pursuant to advertisement and continued until 2020-21. The claim of the petitioner was rejected as he could not qualify the Computer Skill Test. 7. Considering the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. Therefore, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi