1 2025:CGHC:22993-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 270 of 2025 Bhuneshwar Sao S/o Shri Kirtan Sao Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Midmida, Tahsil- Pusaur, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector (Tribal Development) Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Department, Raipur Branch Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.06.12 10:40:39 +0530 2 Advocate for respondents / State. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 431 of 2020 (Bhuneshwar Sao v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case in a nutshell is that in pursuance of advertisement dated 02.06.2012 published by respondent authorities for appointment on the post of contingency paid employees, the writ petitioner submitted application for the post of Peon under the Category of OBC along with all requisite documents. Despite that, the writ petitioner has not been appointed on the said post and his representation filed in this regard has also been rejected vide order dated 05.11.2019. Being aggrieved by the said fact, the writ petitioner herein preferred WPS No. 431 of 2020, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.02.2025. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 13/02/2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, while considering the candidature of the writ petitioner, respondent No.03 has to consider the original application filed by him wherein the he has annexed his certificate of Below Poverty Line. The respondent 3 No.3 while considering the representation dated 27/08/2019 made a specific observation that the writ petitioner has filed BPL Rashan Card with application. The respondent No.03 has issued a letter dated 06/01/2015 to the writ petitioner and directed the writ petitioner to file the original copy of class 5 mark-sheet and original certificate of Below Poverty Line however, the writ petitioner had already filed his original certificate of Below Poverty Line on 08/10/2014 in compliance of letter dated 04/10/2014. The respondent authorities have made contradictory statements in affidavits/reply with regard to poverty line survey applicable in the present case. In the reply filed by the respondents No. 01, 02 & 03 /State, it is submitted that the writ petitioner had not filed Below Poverty Line Certificate of 2002 along with the application and in contradiction to this fact, an affidavit was filed on 21/01/2025, wherein the state submits that since the poverty Line List 2002- 2003 has not been revised till date, they are applying the Socio- Economical Caste survey 2011 and name of the family of writ petitioner is not mentioned in the list. In the affidavit filed on 21/0/2025, respondent no.03 has not referred any circular/order of State Government to show that below poverty line survey list 2002-2003 will cease to be considered to determine the status of below poverty line family/person. He lastly submits that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that the entire post under the OBC has not been fulfilled, there are 42 posts been vacant under tribal development branch Raigarh block 4 Sarangarh and Baramkela till 2023. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that in the affidavit filed by the then Collector and District Magistrate, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) on 07.10.2023 which is annexed in the WPS No. 431/2020, it has been stated that the writ petitioner did not presented the BPL certificate with his original application. Relevant paras of the affidavit have been reproduced as under:- “A perusal of the aforesaid clauses would reveal that the Petitioner should have submitted his BPL certificate along with his application and that thereafter only he could have been awarded five bonus marks under the category of below poverty line. 5. That, after the scrutiny of the applications the claims/objections were sought from the applicants vide letter dated 12.11.2012 and in this regard objections could be submitted from 12.11.2012 till 20.12.2012. 6. However, the petitioner did not submit any application to decided his objection within the said time frame and only on 23.11.2012, it was informed by him that he had not submitted the below poverty line 5 certificate of 2002 along with his application form. A copy of the letter dated 23.11.2012 is annexed herein as ANNEXURE D/1. **** 10. That the matter was examined in detail by the Committee and it was noted that BPL certificate was not presented by the petitioner Mr. Sao in his original application, as a result the benefit of five bonus marks for BPL category was not given by the then District Selection Committee.” 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that as per Annexure D/1 of the WPS No.431/2020, the writ petitioner has himself admitted the fact in his application form for claim objection dated 23.11.2012 that he had applied for the post of contingency paid employees, but had not submitted the Poverty Line Certificate of 2002 and hence he could not get the required marks. As such, the writ appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition i.e. WPS No. 431 of 2020 vide order dated 13.02.2025, holding that as per the advertisement, bonus marks were to be granted to the persons having their names in the latest BPL list. Perusal of the application filed by the writ petitioner shows that he had annexed BPL 6 certificate and other documents along with his application. But In the BPL Certificate it has not been mentioned that said certificate pertains to which year. As per communication dated 04.10.2014, the writ petitioner was informed many times for submission of his original ration card and BPL Survey list 1997. In response to which, the writ petitioner had submitted photo copy of his original ration card on 08.10.2014. He did not submit his original ration card despite instructions given by the respondent authorities. Though on 08.10.2014, the writ petitioner has stated that he submitted BPL certificate, but the year to which the certificate relates is not mentioned therein. Thus, it is found that necessary documents required for grant of 05 bonus marks were not submitted by the writ petitioner, therefore, he was not granted 05 marks as bonus. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, 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. 7 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet