1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4984 of 2014 1 - Tarun Kumar Baghel S/o Moti Lal Bahel Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Hardi, PO Bija, PS Kargiroad Kota, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, CG 2 - The Commissioner Commercial Tax Raipur, Dist Raipur, CG. 3 - Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Bilaspur Division, Distt lBilaspur, CG 4 - The Assistant Commissioner Commissioner Tax, Division No.2, Bilaspur, Dist Bilaspur, CG 5 - The Commercial Tax Officer, Office Of Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax, Bilaspur Division 1, Dist Bilaspur, CG 6 - Hitesh Kumar Jaskar S/o Vijay Kumar Jaskar, R/o House No. 75, Village Malhar Sadakpara, PO Malhar, Tah And PS Masturi, Dist Bilaspur, CG ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Anchal Kumar Matre and Shri Piyush Bhoi, Advocates For Respondent/State : Shri Shailesh Puriya, Panel Lawyer Fro Respondent No.6 : Shri S.B.Pandey, Advocate 2 ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 04/07/2025 Facts of this case in brief is that as per advertisement dated 14/02/2012 (Annexure P/2) issued by respondent No.3, the present petitioner, respondent No.6 and other candidates applied for appointment on the post of Peon under the Scheduled Caste category. Out of 11 posts, 3 posts were reserved for the candidates of scheduled caste. It is the case of the petitioner that some interpolation was done in the marks given by the selection committee in the interview and thereby respondent No.6 was given appointment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the advertisement was issued on 29/06/2013 (Annexure P/1) inviting applications for the post of Peon in the Commercial Tax Department/respondent No.3. The petitioner and respondent No.6 both submitted applications for the said post. He further submits that the selection committee has given 73.08 marks to the petitioner and 72.18 marks to respondent No.6 under the head “Educational Qualification”. However, during the course of interview, the President of selection committee gave 2 marks to the petitioner and 2 marks to respondent No.6 out of total 4 marks. Thereafter, manipulation and overwriting has been done in the marks given in the interview and petitioner got total 77.58 marks and respondent No.6 got 79.18 marks which is also reflected from the information received under the RTI Act filed along with the petition as Annexure P/3. It is submitted that it is a case of manipulation in the marks given in the interview. Therefore, appointment of respondent No.6 may be set aside and the petitioner may be appointed in his place. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that there is no merit in the submission of counsel for the petitioner. He has placed on record the marks obtained by different candidates in the interview which clearly demonstrates that the petitioner has obtained only 2 marks whereas respondent No.6 has obtained 3 marks and there is no interpolation done in the marks obtained by the candidates. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 adopts the arguments of learned State counsel and submits that respondent No.6 has been appointed after following due 3 process of law and he is serving the department for the last more than 10 years. Therefore, the appointments made may not be disturbed and this writ petition may be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The main crux of argument of counsel for the petitioner is that there is some interpolation in the marks given in the interview which he tried to justify by producing some documents received under RTI Act to submit that there is some interpolation, however, from the documents filed along with return it prima facie appears to be correct. This is a disputed question of fact whether any interpolation was done or not and it cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise the allegations are leveled against the President and one of the members of the interview committee who were not arrayed as party in this petition, therefore, no finding against them can be given without affording them opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.07.08 16:45:28 +0530