1 2025:CGHC:8195 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7095 of 2017 1. Vijay Kumar S/o Kedar Prasad, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Malpurikala, Police Station Oteband, Block Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 3. Vivek Dewangan S/o Shri Shatruhan Lal Dewangan, R/o 94-C, Bsp Colony, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 4. Harish Kumar Verma S/o Shri Badri Prasad Verma, R/o Village Pahda, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) 5. Rajendra Kumar Vaishnav S/o Shri Kanshidas Vaishnav, R/o Qr-921, In Front Of New Subhodh School, Ward No. 14, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 6. Sushant Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Sudesh Kumar Thakur, R/o Infront Of Bajrang Hotel, Bajrangpara, Ward No. 57, District Durg (C.G.) 7. Pawan Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Mulchand Sahu, R/o Sikola Basti, Behind Hanuman Mandir, Ward No. 16, Gajendra Kirana Store, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No 3 to 7 : None though served. VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.02.17 19:00:45 +0530 2 Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal Order on Board 17.02.2025 1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the action of the respondents for non-consideration and/or rejection of his candidature on the post of Patwari in the Department of Revenue on the ground that the petitioner does not have live registration in Employment Exchange at the time of submission of the application form. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in pursuance to issuance of the advertisement dated 18.11.2016, for Patwari training, the petitioner as well as respondents No. 3 to 7 and, other candidates have participated in the written examination, wherein, the petitioner who belongs to OBC Category, has secured 92.602 marks and his rank was 14 in District Category and, the marks obtained by the respondents No. 3 to 7 were lesser than the petitioner. He submits further that though the petitioner qualified for the said examination, but, was not permitted to participate in Patwari training on the ground that his name was not registered with the Employment Exchange. Further contention of him is that the issue involved in the present petition has already been decided by the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh vs. Roshni Sahu, passed in Writ Appeal No. 411 of 2014 and other connected matters, which was decided on 21.10.2016, 3 while placing reliance upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Pritilata Nanda, reported in 2010 (11) SCC 674. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that since at the time of submission of the application form, the petitioner did not have live registration with the employment exchange, therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected and, therefore, he is not entitled to get any relief in this petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire papers carefully. 5. The issue involved in the present case has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India (Supra), wherein, at para 21, it was held as under:- "21. We also agree with the High Court that once the candidature of the respondent was accepted by the authorities concerned and she was allowed to participate in the process of selection i.e., written test and viva voce, it was not open to them to turn around and question her entitlement to be considered for appointment as per her placement in the merit list on the specious ground that her name had not been sponsored by the employment exchange. In our considered view, by denying appointment to the respondent despite her selection and placement in the merit list, the appellants violated her right to equality in the matter of employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution." 6. While placing reliance upon the aforesaid principles, the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Roshni Sahu (Supra) has held at para 9 as under:- 4 "9. As far as the present cases are concerned, in Writ Appeal No.411 of 2014 the advertisement was issued on 7.2.2013. Last date for submission of application was 23.2.2013 and at the time when the application was submitted the respondent-applicant was not registered with the Employment Exchange. After she submitted her application, she got herself registered with the Employment Exchange on 25.3.2013. Despite the fact that she was not registered, the appellant- State permitted her to appear in the examination. She was successful in the written test. Only after she was found eligible for employment, was an objection raised that since her name was not on the live registration of the Employment Exchange at the time when the application for the post was filed her candidature was rejected." 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the issue involved herein is no more res-integra and the candidature of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground that he did not have live registration with employment exchange and, by considering further that the petitioner is more meritorious than respondents No.3 to 7, I am, therefore, inclined to allow this petition. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and respondents No. 1 and 2/State are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for Patwari training as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge vaishali