1 2025:CGHC:61595 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5268 of 2023 1 - Hitesh Patra S/o Shri Ramakant Patra Aged About 30 Years R/o - Village And Post- Toshgaon, Bazar Padav, Tahsil- Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, (C.S.P.T.C.L.) Through Its, General Manager, (M.S.), Danganiya, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited Through Its General Manager, (H.R.), Danganiya, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh .... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate For Respondents:- Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17.12.2025 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is not challenging any specific order but he is seeking direction from this Hon'ble High VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Court to direct the respondent's authorities, to decide the representation dated 10.07.2023, in which the petitioner, seeking cancelation of the result of the examination which was held by the respondent department, on the post of Junior Engineer Training Electricals. But the representation of the petitioner has not been consider till date and still pending for consideration. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly call for the entire record in relates to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be pleased to issued a writ / or writs / order / or orders / to direct the respondent's authorities, to decide the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.07.2023, (Annexure P/1), within a period of 1 month, in the ends of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief, this Hon'ble Court, deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for the post of Junior Engineer Trainee (Electrical) pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent No. 2. The petitioner duly participated in the online examination and was allotted Roll No. 15261400056, wherein he secured 82 marks. Despite securing higher marks, the petitioner was not selected, whereas several selected candidates 3 who obtained lesser marks than the petitioner were appointed by the respondent authorities by adopting an arbitrary process of normalization. Being aggrieved by the said result, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 05.07.2022, which was not considered. Thereafter, on 07.09.2022, the respondent authorities declared the final result and appointed 173 candidates. Subsequently, the petitioner again submitted a representation on 10.07.2023, specifically contending that the respondent authorities, in violation of the merit criteria prescribed under Clause/Para 09 of the advertisement, made appointments by applying the normalization scheme. The said representation of the petitioner is still pending and has not been decided, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in the recruitment process for the post of Junior Engineer Trainee (Electrical); however, he was not selected despite having answered the questions very well in the examination and being likely to be selected on merit. It is contended that instead of appointing the petitioner, other persons have been appointed. It is stated that the petitioner has serious doubts that the respondent authorities have concealed relevant records, including the marksheet. In this regard, the petitioner filed an application seeking information under the Right to Information Act, but no information has been supplied to him. Consequently, his doubts have been further aggravated. 4 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the recruitment process for the post of Junior Engineer Trainee (Electrical) was conducted in a fair, transparent, and merit-based manner in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines, and that mere participation in the examination or a belief of having performed well does not confer any right of appointment upon the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner could not secure marks sufficient to merit selection and, therefore, was rightly not appointed. The allegations regarding concealment of records or marksheets are denied as vague and baseless, and it is submitted that the application filed under the Right to Information Act has been dealt with in accordance with law. No arbitrariness, illegality, or mala fides can be attributed to the respondents, and the petition, being devoid of merit, deserves dismissal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From a perusal of the record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders, while supplying the requisite documents in accordance with law, so as to enable the petitioner to know the reasons for rejection of his candidature. This exercise shall be completed 5 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha