1 2025:CGHC:2628-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 8 of 2025 Simran Thakur D/o Kulshwar Singh Thakur, Aged About 24 Years R/o Dindayal Colony, Mangla, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Registrar, Pandit Sundarlal Sharma (Open) University, Koni, Birkona Marg, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Examination Controller, Pandit Sunderlal Sharma (Open) University, Koni Birkoana Marg, Bilaspur, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16 . 01 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondent BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.01.16 16:54:48 +0530 2 No. 1/State and Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 2 & 3. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 7844 of 2024 (Simran Thakur vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is eligible and possess 10+2 certificate from a recognized education board and 01 year Diploma/certificate course in Data Entry Operator/programming. He further submits that in the year 2019, an advertisement was issued by the respondent No. 2 for appointment of Assistant Grade-III, but the respondents did not proceed with. Subsequently, on 12.10.2021, the same advertisement was issued for appointment on the aforesaid post with a clause whereby new candidates were allowed to apply for the same and interested candidates applied in the year 2019 were also directed to apply without requirement of paying again for the forms. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent authority firstly did not proceed with the advertisement of the year 2019 for almost about two years, then issued an advertisement in the year 12.10.2021 with allowing new candidates to apply. He also submits that on 25.03.2022 a final list of eligible/ineligible candidates was prepared despite the same no further proceeding took place. The respondent authority never clarified as to not proceeding with 3 advertisement in the year 2019 then again after preparing the eligibility list in the year 2021, that for about 05 years the respondent authority did nothing to proceed with the advertisements without any rhyme or reason. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant states that by way of an illegal notice dated 08.11.2024, the respondent authority is proceeding with its eligibility list of the year 2021 without allowing new applications as the respondent authority did in the year 2021. The action of the respondent authority is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He further states that the learned Single Judge did not consider the fact that the respondent authority ought to have stalled the proceedings since almost 02 years and with this passage of time new eligible candidates would also be interested to apply. He would submit that the learned Single Judge did not consider the fact that the respondent authority by way of the notice dated 08.11.2024 are only considering the candidates who applied in the year 2019 an reapplied in the year 2021 along with new applications thus illegally barring eligible candidates who could also apply. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 04.12.2024 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 2 & 3 submit that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. 7. Learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 2 & 3 submits that appointment letters have already been issued to the eligible candidates, 4 who appeared in the recruitment process conducted on 08.12.2024 and they have already joined their place of posting, thus, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 9. While passing the impugned order learned Single Judge held that the advertisement was issued in the year 2021 and the skill test is scheduled on 08.12.2024; the appellant failed to participate in the recruitment process and when the recruitment process is underway, he has filed the writ petition bearing WPS No. 7844 of 2024 seeking relief to permit him to participate in the recruitment process. As the appellant is failed to participate in the recruitment process, no relief can be granted. 10. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan