1 2025:CGHC:17269 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4604 of 2021 1 - Gayatri Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Barpani Through Secretary, Gangasingh, W/o Balbhadra, Aged About 55 Years, Sector- Chandan, Village Barpani, Tehsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Department Of Women And Child Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Women And Child Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Programme Officer, Women And Child Development Department, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Aman Pandey, Advocate holding the brief of Ms. Supriya Upasane, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Prateek Tiwari, P.L. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ setting aside the impugned provisional list dated 06.08.21 directing the respondent no. 03 to issue a fresh provisional list after properly evaluating marks given to the petitioner, in the interest of the Justice. 10.2 To direct the respondent authorities to make new appointment only after expiration of petitioner's tenure as per the agreement. 10.3 Cost of the proceedings. 10.4 Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a registered society engaged in the supply of ready to eat food since 2015. He would contend that an advertisement was issued by respondent No.3 for fresh appointment of eligible groups in Tehsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara. He would contend that the agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent authorities for the supply of ready to eat food on 25.6.2018 for a period of 3 years. He would also contend that 3 before the expiry of 3 years, a fresh advertisement was issued by the respondent authorities on 31.10.2020. He would also submit that the petitioner participated in the process but could not succeed. He would further argue that the respondent authorities may be directed to issue a fresh provisional list after evaluating marks awarded to the petitioner and to take an appropriate decision for allotment of the supply work. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent authorities on 25.6.2018 for a period of 3 years. He would also submit that a fresh advertisement was issued on 31.10.2020 and the petitioner participated in it but could not succeed, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was initially allotted the work for the supply of ready to eat food for a period of three years vide agreement dated 25.6.2018. A fresh advertisement was issued by the department on 31.10.2020. The petitioner participated in that process but was not selected and later on, he challenged the said process. -4- 6. Considering the fact that the petitioner participated in the selection process and then challenged it by filing the present petition and further, the period of 3 years from 25.6.2018 has already expired, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. It is also observed that the petitioner was awarded lesser marks after taking into account its overall performance. Moreover, the petitioner has not impleaded the group, in whose favor the order of allotment was passed subsequently. 7. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi