1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4198 of 2017 1 - Kamal Narayan S/o Dhanesh Ram Aged About 34 Years R/o C/o Laxmi Bai Kumhar Village-Kharenga District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Higher Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya New Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary Shankar Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The University Grants Commission Through Its Secretary Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi 4 - Balraj Tamrakar S/o Tilokchand Tamrakar R/o Sector-6 Bhilai District- Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Dhalaram Sahu S/o Gaindram Sahu R/o Baroda Bazar Tahsil- Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 6 - Toplal Verma S/o Girja Shankar Verma R/o Shankar Nagar Durg District- Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 7 - Manoj Kumar S/o Chhatram Patanwar R/o Kapil Nagar Sarkanda Of Kapil Nagar, Sarkanda District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For respective Respondents : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer, Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate, and Mr. B.S. Rajput, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05.05.2025 -2- 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/ order, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned select list (Annexure P/1) so far it relates to private respondents no. 4 to and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to select and appointment the petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor (Political Science), in accordance with law. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to fill up the one advertised vacant post of Assistant Professor (Political Science) from other backward category. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2) Mr. Choubey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, private respondents and other eligible candidates participated in the recruitment process for selection to the post of Assistant Professor (Political Science) pursuant to an advertisement dated 10.09.2014. He would further submit that out of 61 posts, 9 posts were reserved for the Other Backward Category (OBC). He would contend that according to clause 6(iv)(c) of the advertisement, non- creamy layer candidates of OBC were required to submit income certificate issued three years prior to the date of submission of the application. He would further contend that such certificate was issued to 3 respondent No.7 on 11.06.2017 whereas the last date for the submission of the application form was 09.10.2014 and thus, respondent No.2 committed an error while considering the candidature of respondent No.7 and other private respondents. He would also contend that the name of the petitioner was at serial No.14 in the overall wait-list whereas the name of respondent No.7 was at serial No.13. He would contend that the name of the petitioner was not considered by respondent No.2/CGPSC for the reasons best known to them. He would also submit that the respondents have not explained their conduct properly. 3) On the other hand, Ms. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 7 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Dubey. She would submit that respondent No.7 was in the merit list and therefore, he was offered the appointment. She would further submit that respondent No.7 and other private respondents were appointed in the year 2017 itself to the post of Assistant Professor (Political Science). She would contend that the call letter was issued to respondent No. 7 on 12.06.2017 and according to clause 2.6 of the call letter, the members of the non-creamy layer were required to submit caste certificate and income certificate within three years from the last date of submission of the application form. Ms. Gupta would also submit that the last date of the submission of the application form was 09.10.2014 and the relevant certificate was issued in favour of respondent No.7 on 11.06.2017 and -4- thus, it was within the prescribed period. She would further argue that the petitioner has annexed the certificates of other candidates who are not a party to the present lis. She would also argue that respondents No.4 to 7 were appointed in the year 2017 and they are working on the said post without there being any objection. 4) Dr. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/PSC would submit that the petitioner participated in the entire recruitment process and being unsuccessful, challenged the selection of respondents No.4 to 7. He would further submit that the petitioner was in the wait-list at serial No.14 and it is not a case of the petitioner that the candidates who secured lesser marks than the petitioner secured appointment. He would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) Mr. Shadangi, learned Panel Lawyer and Mr. Rajput, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/UGC would support the contentions made by Dr. Agrawal and Ms. Gupta. 6) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7) Clause 6(iv)(c) of the advertisement and clause 2.6 of the call letter appear to be contradictory. 8) According to clause 6(iv)(c) of the advertisement, a candidate was required to submit income certificate issued three years prior to the cut- 5 off date whereas according to clause 2.6 of the call letter, the candidate was permitted to submit such certificate within three years from the cut- off date. 9) The petitioner and respondents No. 4 to 7 belong to the OBC category. The petitioner never challenged any of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement or call letter. After the declaration of the result and selection of respondents No.4 to 7, this petition was filed only on the ground that the income certificates were issued in favour of respondents No.4 to 7 after the last date of the submission of the application form. 10) Taking into consideration the fact that the certificates were submitted by respondents No.4 to 7 before the competent authority according to clause 2.6 of the call letter dated 12.06.2017 and it is not the case of the petitioner that respondents No.4 to 7 do not belong to the OBC category. In my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha