1 2025:CGHC:33998 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6476 of 2018 Kamlesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Shyamlal Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Baya, Block Kasdol, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Forest Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Divisional Forest Officer Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - President Primary Co - Operative Society, Mini Forest Product Sangh, Through The President, Village Baya, Block Kasdol, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Forest), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Selection Committee Of Primary Cooperative Society Mini Forest Product Sangh, Baya Through The District Forest Officer, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 6 - Om Prakash Panda S/o Shri Dolmani Panda R/o Village Chicharapali, Post Baya, Tahsil Kasdol, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.22 15:59:57 +0530 2 For Respondent No. 3 For Respondent No. 6 : : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other apopropriate writ, commanding and direction the respondents to produce the complete record relating to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing to quash the order Annecure P/1. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing to appoint the petitioner in the post of Manager, Primary Cooperative Society, Baya. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to award cost and damages of the petition in favour of the petitioner. 10.5 Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2. Mr. Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner participated in the recruitment to the post of Manager in the Primary Mini Forest Cooperative Society, Baya. On the basis of marks obtained in the examination, a merit list was prepared and the name of the petitioner was at Serial No. 1. He would further submit that though the petitioner was meritorious as he was at Serial No.1 in the merit list, but he was not permitted to join the services and the appointment order was also not issued instead an 3 appointment order was issued in favour of respondent No. 6 on 20.08.2018. He would contend that earlier, the petitioner was working in the post of Prerak and Awas Mitra at Gram Panchayat, Baya. He would further contend that he was getting Rs.2,000/- as honorarium and it was not a regular post. He would also contend that no objection certificate was issued by the earlier employer, and it was placed before respondent No. 3, even though the name of the petitioner was not considered for appointment. He would pray to quash the appointment order issued in favour of respondent No. 6. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that in the application form, the petitioner suppressed the material fact that he was working with Semi Government Institution in the post of Prerak and Awas Mitra and at the relevant time in the year 2017, he was posted at Gram Panchayat, Baya. They would further contend that no objection certificate was issued by the earlier employer after the submission of the application form, and therefore, though the petitioner was meritorious, his name was not considered for appointment. They would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Perusal of the application form would show that in column No. 16, the petitioner stated that he was not employed with any government or semi government institution. 6. Perusal of the documents would show that the petitioner was working on the post of Prerak and Awas Mitra with the Gram Panachaya, Baya and no objection certificate was issued on 20.02.2018 after the 4 submission of the application form. The petitioner has suppressed the material facts and failed to disclose his earlier engagement; therefore, in the opinion of this Court, his candidature was rightly rejected. 7. Thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere. 8. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti