1 2025:CGHC:3736-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 32 of 2025 Ashish Kumar Sharma S/o Shri B.P. Sharma Aged About 34 Years R/o Masanganj, Eidgaah Road, in front of Press Club, P.S. Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of General Administrative, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyala Through The Registrar, Krishak Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Registrar Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyala, Krishak Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Ranjeet Kumar Modi S/o Shri Vishwanath Modi Sai Colony, Jora, Krishak Nagar, P.S. Telibandha, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Ambast and Ms. Hiya Sonchhatra, Advocates For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, /State Additional Advocate General For Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. D. N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.01.23 18:40:00 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21 . 01 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Ambast and Ms. Hiya Sonchhatra, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No.1, Mr. D. N. Prajapati, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2 & 3 and Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.4. 2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was petitioner in writ petition has challenged the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5844 of 2014 (Ashish Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ appellant herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that respondent No. 2 is University (Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya) and respondent No. 3 is Registrar, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyala, Krishak Nagar, Raipur. Respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement dated 08.07.2013 (Annexure-P/3) 3 calling aspirants to offer their candidature for various posts viz. Programme Coordinator, Subject Matter Specialist and Programme Assistant, describing the pay scale to be applied for such posts. The advertisement dated 08.07.2013 (Annexure-P/3) inculcated in it all the details of the recruitment such as the number of vacancies to be filled up, the reservation, the requisite qualification essential and desirable, the age limit and general conditions of service, the petitioner / appellant in view of fulfilling the requisite technical requirement offered his candidature for all the three posts advertised and was hopeful for reasonable consideration of his case. The procedure of appointment has been given in Statute 7 of the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1987 (for short, the Statute of 1987), which explains that the panel so forwarded to the Vice Chancellor shall be forwarded by him along with his own recommendation to the appointing authority. As per Statute 7(2) of the Statute of 1987, the appointing authority may accept and approve the recommendations or may return the same refusing to accord approval recording reasons in writing and in such case the Vice Chancellor would be required to send another panel of recommended candidates in the order of merit to the appointing authority, but, in the present case, though the respondents/competent authority initiated the process of appointment by calling applications through an advertisement as mandated in the Statute 6 (b) of the Statute of 1987, the rest of 4 statutory procedure was given a complete go-bye while making appointment of respondent No. 4. 4. After due scrutiny of the applications of the candidates, a list of eligible and ineligible candidates were prepared and the eligible candidates were called for an interview to be held on 15.07.2014 at 11.00 am vide letter dated 23.06.2014 (Annexure P/4). The name of the petitioner was found in the list of eligible candidates at Serial No. 33, whereas the name of respondent No. 4 was found in the list of ineligible candidates for his age being over 35 years i.e., more than the upper age limit prescribed in the advertisement dated 08.07.2013 (Annexure-P/3). This way the respondent No. 4 lost his candidature at the very beginning of the recruitment procedure. The petitioner in view of the above appeared in interview on the scheduled date and time, performed well therein, he was expecting for a result of the recruitment process in his favour, but as per appointment order dated 16.10.2014 (Annexure P/1), the respondents/competent authority appointed respondent No. 4 for the post of Subject Matter Specialist (Entomology). The impugned appointment order was greatly shocking for the reason that respondent No. 4 did not even appear in the interview for already having been discarded by the screening committee as his age was over the upper age limit while scrutiny of the applications. Respondents/competent authority appointed respondent No. 4 in a most highhanded and arbitrary manner though his name was found in the list of 5 ineligible candidates and it falls under violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner / appellant has filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being WPS No. 5844 of 2014 before this Court seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 16.10.2014 (Annexure P/1), whereby the competent/respondent authority appointed respondent No. 4 for the post of Subject Matter Specialist (Entomology). The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 25.10.2024. Hence, this appeal. 5. Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant / writ petitioner submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in law and facts both by dismissing the writ petition vide impugned order dated 25.10.2024 without considering and appreciating the fact that appointment order of respondent No. 4 is glaringly in violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and it is violation of the Statutory procedure prescribed in the Statute of 1987 and thus is unsustainable even for a moment, the appointment of respondent No.4 on the post of Subject Matter Specialist (Entomology) is void ab initio in view of he being ineligible to be called for interview for the post concerned, as recorded by the Screening Committee that he was working on ad-hoc basis and not a regular employee. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the appointment of respondent No. 4 is an instance of 6 highhandedness and arbitrariness on the part of the respondents/competent authority in view of his candidature having already been discarded by the screening committee for his age having already crossed the upper age limit as prescribed in the advertisement, so the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well impugned order dated 16.10.2014, appointing respondent No.4 herein for the post of Subject Matter Specialist (Entomology) are liable to be set aside and respondents/competent authority may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Subject Matter Specialist (Entomology). In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Bihar and Others Vs. Devendra Sharma, reported in (2020) 15 SCC 466. 6. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondent No.1/State submitted that the State is a formal party and contesting parties are respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 7. Mr. D. N. Prajapati, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 submitted though a representation was submitted by respondent No. 4 on 28.06.2014 requesting the them to grant relaxation in the age on the ground (i) that the similarly situated persons were earlier granted age relaxation (ii) and he had worked as Research Associate continuously for a period of 5 years and as such, the said representation submitted by respondent No. 4 for relaxation of age has been allowed by the 7 competent authority and the authority issued interview call letter to respondent No.4 to appear before the selection committee. A copy of call letter dated 14.07.2014 is annexed as Annexure- R-2/1. Hence, there is no illegality and irregularity at all in the selection of respondent No. 4 and therefore, the writ petition liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 strongly opposed the above prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that that when respondent No. 4 got the information that University/Respondent No.2 has declared the list of candidates, those are eligible for giving interview on the said advertised post and he found his name in ineligible candidates list, he forthwith submitted his representation to University Scrutiny Committee and Registrar to consider his candidature as under the eligible candidate, because he has served as a contractual/ad hoc employee in University for about more than 08 years, respondent No. 4 filed representation, because advertisement issued by University clearly shows that age relaxation will be given to employee those worked as a permanently/temporary or contractual employee on the ground that previously a corrigendum was also issued by the University and according to that previously some appointment has been made in previously advertised post. He further submitted that Respondents No. 2 and 3 decided the representation of respondent No. 4 and according to that respondent No. 4 was declared eligible for interview and 8 after that respondents No. 2 and 3 issued a call letter for interview to respondent No. 4. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 participated in an interview and selection committee has given a score card and in score card, respondent No. 4 got highest marks on total of all selection criteria, therefore, he is declared as a selected candidate and proper selection list is issued by respondents No. 2 and 3. He also submitted that respondents No. 2 and 3 had followed the doctrine of natural justice which contains the opportunity of hearing to any person who is affected by the State act. The representation of respondent No. 4 has been decided according to natural justice and opportunity of hearing has been given to respondent No. 4 by respondents No. 2 and 3, so this appeal is bereft of any merit, accordingly is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 10. It is not in dispute that respondent No.4 is a contractual / ad hoc employee in University for about more than 08 years and respondents No. 2 and 3 issued an advertisement dated 08.07.2013 for the post of Subject Matter Specialist (Entomology) and appellant and respondent No. 4 filed their applications for the said post, it is admitted position in this case that list of eligible candidates were prepared and the name of the appellant in the list of eligible candidates was found at Serial No. 33, whereas the name of respondent No. 4 was found in the list of ineligible candidates at Serial No. 03, reason mentioned for being not 9 eligible is that his age is more than 35 years i.e., over the upper age of limit. The age limit prescribed in the said advertisement reads as under :- Age limit:- The applicants age shall not be more than 35 years for the post of Subject Matter Specialist and Programme Assistant. Upper age limit shall be determined as on the date of 31.08.2013. Relaxation in upper age limit to ST/SC/OBC and women candidates will be provided as per C.G. Govt Rules. Note- (i) Subject Matter Specialist:- There will be no age bar for the employees/officers of the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur working in regular services/post. (ii) Programme Assistant:- There will be no age bar for the ministerial/non ministerial/work charge/ contingency/ confractual/daily paid employees of the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur. (iii) The Permanent/temporary/contractual employees of government of Chhattisgarh or any undertaking of government of Chhattisgarh will be entitled for age relaxation as per government rules.’’ 11. From perusal of aforesaid age limit prescribed for the post of Subject Matter Specialist, it is clear that the applicants age shall not be more than 35 years for the post of Subject Matter Specialist and Programme Assistant. Upper age limit shall be determined as on the date of 31.08.2013. Relaxation in upper age limit to ST/SC/OBC and women candidates will be provided as per C.G. Govt Rules. The appellant as well as respondent No.4 have applied for the post of Subject Matter Specialist (Entomology) and as per Note, there will be no age bar for the 10 employees/officers of the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur working in regular services/post. But, the fact remains that respondent No.4 was a contractual / ad hoc employee in the said University. As such, as per prescribed age limit criteria in the said advertisement, respondent No.4 was not eligible to apply for the post of Subject Matter Specialist (Entomology) and therefore, initially the name of respondent No.4 was kept in the list of ineligible candidate. However, on filing of representation by the respondent No.4 on 28.06.2014, requesting the respondent authorities to grant relaxation in the age on the ground (i) that the similarly situated persons were earlier granted age relaxation (ii) and he had worked as Research Associate continuously for a period of 5 years, the said representation has been allowed by the competent authority and the authority issued interview call letter to respondent No.4 to appear before the selection committee. 12. In Devendra Sharma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :- “35. Lastly, it is argued that employees have been working for many years, some for more than 25 years, therefore, humanitarian view should be taken to set aside the order of termination and regularise their services so as to make them entitled to pension and other retirement benefits. 36. We do not find any merit in the said argument. A Full Bench of the High Court in Rita Mishra & Ors. v. Director, Primary Education, Bihar & Ors. (1997) 2 SCC 1 while dealing with appointment in the education department claiming salary despite the fact that letter of appointment was forged, fraudulent or illegal, declined such claim. It was held that the right to salary 11 stricto sensu springs from a legal right to validly hold the post for which salary is claimed. It is a right consequential to a valid appointment to such post. Therefore, where the very root is non-existent, there cannot subsist a branch thereof in the shape of a claim to salary. The rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. Therefore, these rights, including the right to salary, spring from a valid and legal appointment to the post. Once it is found that the very appointment is illegal and is non est in the eye of law, no statutory entitlement for salary or consequential rights of pension and other monetary benefits can arise. 37. Such judgment of the Full Bench was approved by three Judge Bench of this Court in a Judgment reported R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 105. This Court held as under: “17. The point was again examined by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Rita Mishra v. Director, Primary Education, Bihar [AIR 1988 Pat 26]. The question posed before the Full Bench was whether a public servant was entitled to payment of salary to him for the work done despite the fact that his letter of appointment was forged, fraudulent or illegal. The Full Bench held: “13. It is manifest from the above that the rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. Therefore, these rights, including the right to salary, spring from a valid and legal appointment to the post. Once it is found that the very appointment is illegal and is non est in the eye of the law, no statutory entitlement for salary or consequential rights of pension and other monetary benefits can arise. In particular, if the very appointment is rested on forgery, no statutory right can flow from it.” 12 18. We agree with the view taken by the Patna High Court in the aforesaid cases.” 38. The appointments made have been examined by five- member Committee. 91 candidates have been found to be a case of irregular appointment. Such candidates are continuing in service. None of the candidates in the present set of appeals could point out that they were appointed in a manner meant for filling up of vacant post of public appointment i.e. by advertisement and by giving opportunity to all eligible candidates to apply. 39. This Court in State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Manshu Kumbhkar (2007) 8 SCC 249, while allowing of the appeal of the State found that the respondent was not sponsored by the employment exchange. There was no advertisement and there was not even any properly constituted committee to make the selection. 40. This Court in State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 65 allowed the appeal of the State and that Section 4 of Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 casts a duty on the employer in every establishment in public sector in the State or a part thereof to notify every vacancy to the employment exchange before filling up the same. 41. This Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Raghuwar Pal Singh (2018) 15 SCC 463 was examining a case, where the appointment letter came to be issued without approval of the competent authority, then whether such appointment letter issued to the respondent, would be a case of nullity or a mere irregularity? If it is a case of nullity, affording opportunity to the incumbent would be a mere formality and non-grant of opportunity may not vitiate the final decision of termination of his services. This Court held that in absence of prior approval of the competent authority, the Director Incharge could not have hastened issuance of the appointment letter. The act of commission and omission of the Director Incharge would, therefore, suffer from the vice of lack of authority and nullity in law. 13 42. In Nidhi Kaim & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 1, a three Judge Bench was dealing with admission of students to MBBS Course on the basis of illegal and unfair admission process. The Court held as under: “92. …Having given our thoughtful consideration to the above submission, we are of the considered view that conferring rights or benefits on the appellants, who had consciously participated in a well thought out, and meticulously orchestrated plan, to circumvent well laid down norms, for gaining admission to the MBBS course, would amount to espousing the cause of “the unfair”. It would seem like allowing a thief to retain the stolen property. It would seem as if the Court was not supportive of the cause of those who had adopted and followed rightful means. Such a course would cause people to question the credibility of the justice-delivery system itself. The exercise of jurisdiction in the manner suggested on behalf of the appellants would surely depict the Court's support in favour of the sacrilegious. It would also compromise the integrity of the academic community. We are of the view that in the name of doing complete justice it is not possible for this Court to support the vitiated actions of the appellants through which they gained admission to the MBBS course. xx xx xx 94. …Even in situations where a juvenile indulges in crime, he has to face trial, and is subjected to the postulated statutory consequences. Law, has consequences. And the consequences of law brook no exception. The appellants in this case, irrespective of their age, were conscious of the regular process of admission. They breached the same by devious means. They must therefore, suffer the consequences of their actions. It is not the first time that admissions obtained by deceitful means would be cancelled. This Court has consistently annulled academic gains arising out 14 of wrongful admissions. Acceptance of the prayer made by the appellants on the parameter suggested by them would result in overlooking the large number of judgments on the point. Adoption of a different course, for the appellants, would trivialise the declared legal position. Reference in this behalf may be made to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel representing Vyapam. xx xx xx 108. …In the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it would not be proper to legitimise the admission of the appellants to the MBBS course in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. We, therefore, hereby decline the above prayer made on behalf of the appellants.” 43. In another three Judge Bench judgment in Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India & Ors. v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Ors. (2017) 8 SCC, the Court was examining the consequences of false caste certificate produced to seek appointment. The Court held as under: “69. For these reasons, we hold and declare that: xx xx xx 69.3 The decisions of this Court in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 105 and in Union of India v. Dattatray, (2008) 4 SCC 612 which were rendered by Benches of three Judges laid down the principle of law that where a benefit is secured by an individual-such as an appointment to a post or admission to an educational institution—on the basis that the candidate belongs to a reserved category for which the benefit is reserved, the invalidation of the caste or tribe claim upon verification would result in the appointment or, as 15 the case may be, the admission being rendered void or non est. xx xx xx 69.7 Withdrawal of benefits secured on the basis of a caste claim which has been found to be false and is invalidated is a necessary consequence which flows from the invalidation of the caste claim and no issue of retrospectivity would arise;” 44. In view of the aforesaid judgments, it cannot be said that the appointment of the employees in the present set of appeals were irregular appointments. Such appointments are illegal appointment in terms of the ratio of Supreme Court judgment in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1. As such appointments were made without any sanctioned post, without any advertisement giving opportunity to all eligible candidates to apply and seek public employment and without any method of recruitment. Such appointments were backdoor entries, an act of nepotism and favoritism and thus from any judicial standards cannot be said to be irregular appointments but are illegal appointments in wholly arbitrary process. 45. In light of the above discussion, we find that the order dated July 12, 2011 or other similar orders passed by the High Court cannot be sustained in law and, thus, are set aside. The appeals filed by the State are allowed.” 13. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is an admitted fact that respondent No.4 was a contractual / ad hoc employee in University for about more than 08 years and he was more than 35 years of age at the time of applying for the post of Subject Matter 16 Specialist (Entomology) in pursuance to an advertisement dated 08.07.2013 issued by the respondent authorities and considering the said fact, the Screening Committee has rightly kept the name of respondent No. 4 in the list of ineligible candidate. But, on filing of representation by the respondent No.4 on 28.06.2014, requesting the respondent authorities to grant relaxation in the age on the ground (i) that the similarly situated persons were earlier granted age relaxation (ii) and he had worked as Research Associate continuously for a period of 5 years, though respondent No.4 was a contractual / adhoc employee, but the competent authority has committed grave illegality in allowing the said representation and issuing interview call letter to respondent No.4 to appear before the selection committee knowingly that as per advertisement, no relaxation could be granted to an-hoc candidate /employee, however, keeping everything aside, as a formality, which is not only bad, arbitrary and illegal, but is also in serious violation of advertisement as well as tall the professed norms of appointment, Rules and Regulations. 14. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Devendra Sharma (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the appointment of respondent No.4 is an instance of highhandedness and arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in view of his candidature having already been 17 discarded by the Screening Committee for his age having already crossed the upper are limit as prescribed in the advertisement. Thus, the learned Single Judge has committed grave illegality in dismissing the writ petition. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 5844 of 2014 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the writ petition being WP(S) No. 5844 of 2014 filed by the writ petitioner / appellant is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.10.2014 (Annexure P/1) appointing respondent No.4 for the post of Subject Matter Specialist (Entomology) is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Subject Matter Specialist (Entomology) as per the provisions of the Statute of 1987 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra