1 2025:CGHC:30548 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4636 of 2018 1 - Smt. Laxmi Sahu W/o Shri Motilal Sahu, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bundeli, Post Chirhula, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department And Social Welfare Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 5 - Tameshwar Sahu, S/o Onkar Sahu, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Bundeli, Post Chirhula, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.3 & 4 : Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04.07.2025 -2- 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court further may kindly be pleased to set aside the appointment order dated 13/03/2018 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent No.3 i.e. Chief Executive Officer Mungeli (C.G.) and further Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to give appointment to the petitioner in place of respondent No.5. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The facts of the present case are that the Office of respondent No.3 i.e. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Mungeli issued an advertisement for the post of ‘Rojgar Sahayak’ on 25.09.2017. Condition No.16 of the advertisement was that if a candidate has a child born after 26.01.2001, he would not be entitled to the appointment. The petitioner and the other eligible candidates including respondent No.5 submitted their applications. A merit list was prepared. The name of the petitioner was placed at serial No.149 whereas the name of respondent No. 5 was at serial No.146. The merit list would show that the petitioner secured 71.79 marks whereas respondent No. 5 secured 62.38 marks. The respondent authorities issued an order of appointment in favour of respondent No.5 on 13.03.2018 and the name of the petitioner was not considered. 3 3. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner was meritorious to respondent No.5 but his name was not considered without any sufficient reason. He would further submit that the appointment order of the respondent No. 5 may be quashed and a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the name of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Sahu would submit that the petitioner is a mother of three children. The third child of the petitioner was born after 26.01.2001 and thus, she was not eligible for appointment according to condition No.16 of the advertisement therefore, her name was not considered. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State would support the contentions made by Mr. Sahu. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. Condition No.16 of the advertisement states that if a candidate has three children and one was born after 26.01.2001, such a candidate would not be eligible for appointment. This clause was inserted in the advertisement according to Rule 6(6) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (for short ‘the Rules of 1961’). The said Rule was deleted vide Notification dated 13.07.2017. 8. Admittedly, the advertisement was issued on 25.09.2017 with a -4- condition stated above but the petitioner failed to challenge the said condition of the advertisement on the ground that vide Notification dated 13.07.2017, Rules 6(6) of the Rules of 1961 was deleted. 9. The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No.5 after participating in the recruitment process, whereas, she was aware of Condition No.16 mentioned in the advertisement. The petitioner has not denied the fact that her third child was born after 26 January 2001. 10.Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the appointment of respondent No. 5, thus, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No cost(s). SD/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha