1 2025:CGHC:17370 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2535 of 2025 1 - Pankaj Kumar S/o Gorelal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kenvtara Post Pachpedi, Janpad Panchayat Masturi, Thana Masturi District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive OfÏcer District Panchayat Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive OfÏcer Janpad Panchayat Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Jitendra Patle S/o Shantanu Patle R/o Village Kevntara, Post Panchpedi, Tehsil Panchpedi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.04.17 16:22:19 +0530 2 (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Nasimuddin Ansari, Advocate along with Shri Riyazuddin Ansari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 16.04.2025 1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the appointment of respondent no. 5 and thereafter issue the appointment order in favour of the petitioner on the post of Awas Mitra. 2. Learned counsel for the appearing for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the notification issued by the respondent authorities, the petitioner and other candidates applied for the post of Awas Mitra. According to the petitioner he is having the qualification of B.E. (Civil), whereas the respondent no. 5 is not having such qualification. Despite the said fact the petitioner has been awarded 58.81 marks whereas respondent no. 5 has been awarded 60.45 marks, which can be seen from page 19-20 of the writ petition. Thus the appointment of respondent no. 5 is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the preference for qualification of B.E. (Civil) has not been given to the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State would support the action of the respondent authorities. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and the perused the pleadings and documents. 5. From bare perusal of the pleadings and documents, it is apparent that the petitioner has not filed the appointment order issued in favour of the respondent no. 5, he has only filed the copy of the select list and on the basis of select list it cannot be said that the respondent no. 5 has been appointed. Even otherwise in the advertisement dated 30.08.2024 the education qualification of BE/Diploma/12th Pass has been prescribed and mentioned that preference will be given to the candidates of B.E. (Civil) and Diploma and MA (Rural Development). Thus it cannot be said that since the petitioner is having the qualification of B.E. he be given appointment. 6. It is noteworthy to mention here that on account B.E. qualification, 15 extra marks have been awarded to the petitioner, however, in overall he secured 58.81 marks whereas no extra marks were awarded to the respondent No.5 and in spite of the said fact he secured more marks than the petitioner i.e. 60.45. Thus, it cannot be said that the action on the part of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner failed to prove his case by placing cogent and sufÏcient material. 7. Accordingly, the petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib