1 2025:CGHC:18264-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 262 of 2025 Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma S/o Phoolchand Vishwakarma Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Bus Stand Manendragarh, District- Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Adim Jati Research Institute, Pt. Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector-4, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector District- Korea, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Deepak Das S/o Shri Jodhan Das Aged About 30 Years R/o Jila Jansampark Karyhalaya, Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate and Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Achyut Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Ms. Diksha Gouraha, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3 / State. 3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 23.09.2024 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2586/2015 (Rajesh Kumar Vishvakarma v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) whereby, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein on the ground of delay and latches. 4. Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement dated 21.12.2012 was issued for recruitment to the post of Data Entry Operator and the writ petitioner as well as respondent No.4 both applied for the said post apart from the other candidates and both of them claimed relaxation under Clause 3 of the said advertisement, which stated that preference would be given to the candidates who are in government service. Accordingly, both the writ petitioner and respondent No.4, for having work experience on the post of Data Entry Operator in government department were given relaxation under Clause 3 of the said advertisement, for their consideration on the said post. However, respondent No.4 was selected and 3 appointed to the said post but the writ petitioner was not. Thereby, the appointment procedure including the appointment to the post of Data Entry Operator was concluded by issuance of the impugned appointment order dated 01.10.2013. Thereafter, the appellant herein preferred WPS No. 2586 of 2015 on 13.07.2015 i.e. after passing of one year and nine months, challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 on the ground that the relaxation under Clause 3 of the aforesaid advertisement could not have been granted to respondent No.4. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 23.09.2024, rejected the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein on ground of delay and latches, hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the act of the respondent authorities is illegally, arbitrary, unreasonable, without application of mind and the order impugned was passed against the provisions of law. The respondent authorities after publishing the merit list and the select list on 30.09.2013, did not call any objections and in an illegal and arbitrary manner i.e. on 01.10.2013 the appointment order was issued. He further submits that the learned Single has erred in not appreciating the writ petition on its merit and has simply dismissed the same on the ground of delay and latches. He also submits that the appellant immediately after declaration of final merit list preferred application for obtaining documents and information under RTI before the respondent authority, which was denied by the authorities thereafter he 4 preferred appeal under RTI in which also complete information and documentswere not given to him. In such a manner the appellant was forced to file various applications and appeals under RTI and because of which he could not approach this Court immediately after declaration of final merit list and therefore the delay of 1 year and 9 months as was observed in para 7 of the impugned order, was occurred in filing of the writ petition. The delay in filing of the petition was not intentional but was bonafide as the same was occurred for want of documents under RTI from the respondent authorities. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the respondent authorities failed to follow the requirements as mentioned in the advertisement. As Rules and Regulations mentioned in Clause 3 of the advertisement, benefit would be given to the candidate who has experience of work from a government body. Respondent authorities failed to appreciate that respondent No. 4 gave wrong information. Further Rashtriya News Services is not a government agency, as per the information given to the appellant under R.T.I. The respondent authorities failed to appreciate that respondent No. 4 obtained diploma in D.C.A. in the year 2010-11, then how he could get experience of 4 years i.e. 2007 to 2011. The respondent no.4 has given false information and the declaration given by him is wrong. The respondent No. 4 knowingly well that the, information supplied by him is wrong, persuaded the information to be the correct one, thus committed 5 fraud and was successful in getting appointment. The respondent authorities further failed to consider that respondent No. 4 was required to submit experience certificate issued by appointing authority and also no objection certificate from him, which the respondent No. 4 miserably failed to do so. As per Clause 3 of advertisement for allotment of marks on the basis of experience, same has to be issued from the appointing authority, which the respondent No. 4 failed to submit. The respondent authoritles committed grave error by awarding 8 marks for the experience to the respondent No. 4. The appellant is more qualified and is more experienced than the respondent No. 4. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects has rightly dismissed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner / appellant herein as the same is barred by one year and nine months, in which, no interference is sought for. Further, even if the case of the writ petitioner / appellant herein is dealt on merits, the appellant herein is having an experience of three years on a contractual post and as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, for any Government post, experience on a contractual post cannot be counted. Also, even if the experience of the respondent No.4 and appellant herein be deducted, the respondent No. 4 is at the highest. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 6 impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner on the ground of delay and latches observing as follows:- “7. the case at hand, admittedly, on issuance of advertisement dated 21.12.2012 (Annexure P/2), both the petitioner and respondent No.4, in addition to other candidates, have applied for the post of Data Entry Operator. As per Clause 3 of the advertisement, the candidates working in the government sector were to be given preference and they were to be given 02 marks for each year of their working experience. Accordingly, the petitioner was granted 06 marks and respondent No.4 was granted 08 marks for their work experience. Ultimately, the impugned appointment order was issued on 01.10.2013 (Annexure P/1), whereby respondent No.4 was selected and appointed to the aforesaid post, but the petitioner was not. However, at that time, the petitioner did not raise any objection to the appointment of respondent No.4 and only after getting information under Right to Information Act (Annexure P/8), filed this writ petition on 13.07.2015 i.e. after passing of one year and nine months, allowing the appointment of respondent No.4 to become final. Now, the petitioner has sought to challenge that respondent No.4 was not entitled for grant of relaxation on the basis of his working experience and that he would not have been awarded the 08 marks. However, return has been filed on behalf of the State supported by affidavit of the Deputy Director, Tribal Research Institute, 7 Raipur, in which it has been categorically stated in para 10 that respondent No.4 was the employee of Rashtriya News Agency and he has rendered his services for all those period in the office of District Public Relation Koriya, therefore, he has rightly been awarded marks for the aforesaid work experience, which is also evident from the information at Annexure P/8. Moreover, since no counter affidavit has been filed against the statement made in para 10 of the return by way of rejoinder, I am unable to uphold the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, as respondent No.4 was not entitled to get marks on the basis of work experience. More particularly, though there is a delay of one year and nine months in filing of this writ petition from the date of issuance of the appointment order, in para 7 of this writ petition, the petitioner has conveniently declared that there is no delay in filing of this writ petition, whereas it suffers from delay 8. Accordingly, on the grounds of merit as well as on delay, this writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.” 10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that though the writ petition of the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches, but the counsel for the writ petitioner states that the appointment of the writ petitioner was made on 01.10.2013 in pursuance of the advertisement dated 21.12.2012 and the writ petitioner sought certain information under the RTI Act on 06.01.2014 and the same was given to him on 08.04.2015 and thereafter, he filed the 8 present petition, hence the writ Court has committed illegality in dismissing the petition of the writ petitioner on the ground of latches. However, be that as it may, we have also heard learned counsel for the parties on merits and we do not find any good ground for setting aside the appointment of the private respondent No.4, as he has been serving on his post for more than ten years and even if the experience of both the respondent No. 4 and appellant herein is not taken into consideration, then also the respondent No.4 is at the highest. 11. 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