1 2025:CGHC:29945 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7161 of 2018 1. Smt Rajeshwari Wd/o Late Mahettar Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Qr. No. A-23 Indira Vihar Colony, Secl Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Smt. Veena Singh W/o Late Sanjay Kumar Singh Aged About 44 Years Occupation- Peon, R/o A/74 Basant Vihar, Secl Colony, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Soniya Singh D/o Late Ravishankar Singh Aged About 34 Years Occupation General Mazdoor Category-I, Korba Regional Store, R/o Qr. No. Type Ii/29-Secl Manikpur, P.S. Manikpur, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through The Chirman-Cum-Managing Director, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. General Manager (Personnel) Nee/paf/pension/secl, Head Office, Basant Vihar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Vigilance Officer South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Basant Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Director (Personnel) South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Basant Vihar, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate along with Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.07 17:46:29 +0530 2 02. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or of like nature to quash the impugned order dated 04/09/2018 (Annexure-P/1) and further to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of extra bonus marks of wrong questions and wrong options to the petitioners and select and appoint them on the required posts within period with suitable directions to protect the seniority of the petitioners. 10.2 That, the command/direction may kindly be issued to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioners including the entire selection process. 10.3 Any other relief which is deemed fit and proper may also be awarded along with the cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent department invited applications for various posts including the post of Clerk Grade III and a notification in this regard was issued on 13.05.2016. The petitioners participated in the recruitment process, but they could not qualify for the examination. He would further submit that a written examination was conducted on 16.07.2017 and two sets of question papers, one in English version and another in Hindi version were supplied to the candidates. He would also submit that the question paper was leaked and it was made public to the blue-eyed fellows of the respondents. He would contend that the sequences of questions in the English version and Hindi version were different and answers to some of the questions were incorrect. He would further contend that earlier WPS No. 4130 of 2018 was filed which was disposed of vide order dated 25.06.2018 with a direction to the respondent authorities to decide the representations and to scrutinize the grievances of the petitioners. 3 Mr. Shukla would further argue that a committee was constituted and an order was passed on 04.09.2018, whereby, the grounds raised by the petitioners were considered and decided and accordingly the representation was rejected. It is contended that the respondent authorities have not conducted the inquiry properly. The incorrect questions marked by the petitioners were not examined by the experts. It is further contended that the sequence of questions was different from the question paper of the Hindi version and English version and that aspect has not been considered. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that the petitioners after participating in the entire recruitment process and being unsuccessful, filed this petition. They would further submit that the selection process has already been completed and the order of appointment has been issued to the selected candidates on 02.06.2018, but the petitioners have not impleaded the selected candidates, therefore, the petition is not maintainable. It is also contended that the petitioners have not challenged the order of selection and appointment. They would also submit that the committee duly scrutinized the grievances of the petitioner and took a decision and there is no scope of interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process and thereafter, filed this petition raising certain grounds. With regard to the sequence of questions in the English version and the Hindi version, the petitioners would have opted for either the Hindi version or the English version; therefore, the change of sequence would not change the 4 final result. 6. The issue with regard to two incorrect answers and two questions, this issue has already been dealt with by the committee and this Court being not an expert should not harp on it, accordingly, the contention made by Mr. Shukla is not available. 7. The selection process was completed in the year 2018 and orders were issued, but those persons have not been impleaded as a party respondent in the present petition; therefore also this petition is not maintainable. 8. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant