1 2025:CGHC:10033 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 63 of 2020 1 - Hemchand Borvanshi S/o Shri Bishhat Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Ghothiya, Police Station- Khairagarh, Tahsil- Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Birbaldas Mourya S/o Shri Lal Maurya Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Devkatta, Police Station- Dongargarh, Tahsil- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ramnarayan Sahu S/o Shri Lokuram Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Boirdih, Police Station- Churiya, Tahsil- Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Shahina Begam D/o Shri Islam Khan Aged About 34 Years R/o Sector-8, Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary School Shiksha Vibhag, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary Chhattisgarh Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sanchalak Lokshikshan Sanchanalaya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Pariksha Niyantrak Chhattisgarh Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Durga Prasad Sahu S/o Shri Sant Ram Sahu R/o Village And Post Bhothli, Thana Dongargarh, Tahsil- Lal Bahadur Nagar District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 6 - Santosh Padoti S/o Shri Kuma Lal Padoti R/o Village Bhursa Tola-Ye, Post And Thana Bortalav, Tahsil- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Abhishek Dahariya, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 & 3 For Respondents No.2 & 4 For Respondent No.6 : : : Mr. Aman Deep Singh, Panel Lawyer Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate Mr. Deepak Diwakar, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 28/02/2025 1. Notice issued to respondent No.5 is reported to be unserved due to his refusal, as such, he is supposed to be served. 2. Heard on admission. 3. This petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by petitioners seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 यह कि उ्ቈरवादीगण ो किदशित किया जावे कि वे व्याख्याता भत परी्ቌा 2019 से संबंधि त समस्त अशिभलेख माीय न्यायालय े सम्ቌ ्ቚस्तुत रें। 10.2 यह कि उ्ቈरवादीगण ो किदशित किया जावे कि वे याधि+गण ्ቛारा ्ቚस्तुत दावा/ आपቈኌ्ቈ ा गुणदोष े आ ार पर ी्ቈ किरारण रें। 10.3 यह कि उ्ቈरवादीगण ो किदशित किया जावे कि वे व्याख्याता भत परी्ቌा 2019 े ्ቔूटीपूण4 +य मापदण्ड / मूल्यॉ ो तत्ाल सही र पा्ቔ अभ्यቕኌ<यों में से ही अंधितम मेरिरट सू+ी जारी रे ाय4वाही सुकिधि?त रें। 10.4 यह कि +य ्ቚकि@या / परी्ቌा एवं परिरणाम ्ቔुटीपूण4 / दूकिषत होे से उ्ሹ सम्पूण4 व्याख्याता भत परी्ቌा 2019 ो र्ቌ/ अपास्त किया जावे। 10.5 यह कि, अन्य अुतोष जो माीय न्यायालय उधि+त समझे ” उ्ቈरवादीगणों से किदलाया जावे। 4. Facts of the case, in nutshell are that, respondent No.2 conducted examination in the year 2019 for recruitment of Lecturer E & T Cadre for subjects English, Mathematics and Commerce. Written examination was conducted for said recruitment but various ineligible candidates were permitted to be participated in the said examination. Various incompetent candidates were also found place in merit list, 3 even though, they were not having required qualification, whereas, ineligible candidates were called for verification of documents If they would not have been called for, then, name of the petitioners may be found place above them but due to such irregularities, petitioners have been deprived from getting appointment, hence, they have filed instant writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there were various irregularities in examination process. Even in question paper, model answer and final answer of the various subjects were also containing infirmities & contradictions. Right answers were held wrong and incompetent candidates were permitted to participate in final selection process, whereas, they were not competent at all to participate in examination process. He would further submit that eligible candidates were not called for verification of documents and therefore, petitioners were deprived from appointment. Learned counsel further submitted that various persons were not having degree of B.Ed and post graduation, despite that, they have been appointed, as such, counsel submitted that since there is irregularity and illegality in preparing final select list and petitioners are deprived from appointment, hence, this petition may be allowed and relief(s) sought for in the petition may be granted to the petitioners. 6. State-respondents No.1 & 3, while referring to its reply, would submit that, examination was conducted by the ‘Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board’, and thereafter, select list of as many as 14580 was published and the same has been finalized. That final select list has been approved by the State Government vide order dated 15.09.2020 and in the year 2020 itself, selected candidates have 4 been appointed on their respective post. Learned State counsel would further submit that instant petition has been filed by petitioners on the basis of casual and vague grounds. They have failed to demonstrate a single instance, wherein ineligible candidates have been appointed to the post(s) advertised by the State Government. Allegations levelled by petitioners are vague and baseless. They have not named all those persons, who were not having required qualification or ineligible. He further submitted that petition filed by petitioners is wholly misplaced and misconceived, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 & 4 would submit that though they have not filed reply but they adopt reply and contentions filed/made by State-respondents No. 1 & 3. 8. Respondent No.6 has also filed his reply. Learned counsel representing R-6 referring to his reply also supported the contentions made by learned counsel for the State. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Instant petition has been filed by petitioners alleging therein that the said recruitment process has been made by committing various irregularities and illegality etc. It has also been alleged that ineligible persons were permitted to be participated in the examination process and they have also got selected. It is also alleged that question paper, model answer & final answer-sheet also contain various mistakes and contradictions but no specific fact has been mentioned by the petitioners in writ petition that who are the ineligible candidates, what irregularities have been committed by respondents, which questions- answers were wrong and who are the candidates selected without 5 having required qualification. Whole petition is based on vague and baseless allegations. 11. Having considered such vague and baseless allegations levelled in the petition, I do not feel inclined to entertain instant petition, hence the same is dismissed at motion stage. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.02.28 17:01:07 +0530