1 2025:CGHC:17072-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WA No. 238 of 2025 Gaurav Patel S/o Shri Ajay Nath Patel Aged About 28 Years (Now 38), R/o Rajendra Nagar, Post And Police Station - Bastar, District - Bastar At Jagdalpur (C.G.). ...Appellant(s) versus 1 -State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 -The Director Urban Administration And Development Department, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 3 -Joint Director Urban Administration And Development Department, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur (C.G.) 4 - The Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat, Bastar, District - Bastar (C.G.) --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Sangarsh Pandey, GA. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice. 15.04.2025. 1. Proceedings of the matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. The present writ appeal has been preferred against an order dated 2 23.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition (WPS No.1708/2015) filed by the petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed. 3. Relevant facts for disposal of this writ appeal are that on 24.12.2013, office of respondent No.4 published an advertisement for the post of ‘Assistant Teacher (Arts) and various other posts’. There were 03 posts of ‘Assistant Teacher (Arts)’, out of which, 01 post was reserved for ‘Scheduled Caste (SC)’ and one for ‘Other Backward Class (OBC)’. During process of recruitment, post of OBC category has been deleted from the advertisement. The appellant submitted his application for the post of Assistant Teacher (Arts). After completing all the formalities, on 06.02.2014 office of respondent No.4/Chief Municipal Officer issued a list of eligible and ineligible candidates as merit wise and also invited claims/objections till 12.02.2014. On 12.02.2014, the appellant raised his objection, but respondent No.4 did not consider his objection and issued the appointment order in favour of one Ku. Laxmi Kurre directly without issuing any provisional list or selection list. Appellant made a complaint/dava apatti on 29.03.2014 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bastar and Block Education Officer, Bastar regarding ineligible candidates were shown to be higher rank in merit list, to which, concern Authority has conducted the inquiry and submitted its report before the SDO(R), Bastar wherein it was found those candidates were ineligible as per terms and conditions of the alleged advertisement. Vide memo dated 3 24.05.2014, the SDO(R)/Bastar issued direction to respondent No.4 to scrutinize the applications of candidates and, thereafter, issued the appointment order in the light of the enquiry report. Respondent No.4 sent a letter dated 31.05.2014 to SDO(R)/Bastar on the basis of directions issued by the Directorate Urban Administration and Development to stop the fresh recruitment process and selection from the waiting list of the post of Assistant Teacher and in the light of the same, recruitment process was stopped, however, selection of the appellant was neither fresh nor from the waiting list. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the respondent No.4, the appellant/petitioner filed a writ petition (W.P.S No. 1708/2015) before this Court, which came to be dismissed on 23.10.2024 by holding that recruitment process was revoked by the Nagar Panchayat, Bastar vide order dated 31.05.2014 in compliance with the order dated 21.05.2014 passed by the Joint Director, Urban Administration & Development, Bastar Division/respondent No.3. Both the orders have not been challenged herein. Hence, this writ appeal. 4. Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that learned Single Judge has wrongly observed that the appellant has not challenged the order dated 21.05.2014 and 31.05.2014. Vide memo dated 24.05.2014, the SDO(R)/Bastar issued direction to respondent No.4 to scrutinize the applications of candidates and, thereafter, issued the appointment order in the light of the enquiry report, but respondent No.4 did not 4 scrutinize the applications of candidates properly and issued appointment order in favour of one Ku. Laxmi Kurre, subsequently which was cancelled. In the lists of eligible and ineligible candidates, name of present appellant finds place at Serial No.5 and candidates of Sl. No.1 to 4 are ineligible for the appointment as per the memo dated 24.05.2014, thus, appellant is entitled for the said appointment, but respondent-authorities deprived the appellant to get the appointment by revoking the recruitment process, whereas the direction was issued to stop only fresh recruitment process and the recruitment from the waiting list. The post of Assistant Teacher is vacant till date and the appellant's application is pending yet, hence, respondent authorities are duty bound to complete the recruitment process and to scrutinize the pending applications. Learned Counsel further contended that learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that since the appellant found to be 1st rank holder, after scrutinizing the application, he was neither in waiting list nor affected by the subsequent direction dated 21.05.2014, therefore, no occasion was arises to challenge the said orders. Hence, it is prayed that instant appeal may be allowed, concerned respondent-authorities be directed to complete the recruitment process of Assistant Teacher (Arts) within stipulated period and issued appointment order in favour of the appellant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and 5 would submit that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly passed the impugned order, which warrants no interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition observed that the advertisement for the subject recruitment was issued on 24.12.2013 (Annexure P/1) by the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Bastar/respondent No.4, but thereafter, following complaint of irregularities, the appointment process for the same was revoked by the Nagar Panchayat, Bastar vide order dated 31.05.2014 (Annexure P/7) in compliance with order dated 21.05.2014 (Annexure P/8) passed by the Joint Director, Urban Administration And Development, Baster- Division, Jagdalpur/respondent No.3. However, both the orders dated 31.05.2014 (Annexure P/7) & 21.05.2014 (Annexure P/8), by which the subject appointment process was revoked have not been challenged herein and thereby, they have become final. 8. Considering facts of the case, 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 appellant/ writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by 6 this Court. 9. 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 J.