1 2025:CGHC:8546-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 129 of 2025 1 - Smt. Rameshwari Dewangan W/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Dewangan Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Faratford, Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 1) 2 - Nagar Panchayat Arjunda Through The Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Arjunda, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 2) 3 - Ku. Ageshwari Sahu D/o Narsingh Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kahagaon, Telitola, Post Bharritola, Tahsil Maanpur, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 3) 4 - Ku. Usha D/o Shri Bhagwat Prasad Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Odarsakri, Post Gabdi, Tahsil Guderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 4) 5 - Divisional Commissioner Durg Division, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 5) 6 - Collector Balod Collectorate Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 6) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Shri Amrito Das, Advocate. For State : Shri YS Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.02.24 16:48:39 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 19.02.2025 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the impugned order dated 09.12.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.2784 of 2015 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. 2 Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent Nagar Panchayat Arjunda issued an advertisement for the post of Lecturers, Teachers and Assistant Teachers in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Shikshak (Nagriya Nikay) Samvarg (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2013 (for short 'Rules of 2013)'. Only one post was advertised for the post of Teacher (Municipal) in Social Science subject for women in Unreserved category. The Petitioner as well as Respondent No.3 Ku. Ageshwari Sahu and Respondent No.4 Ku. Usha applied for the said post and participated in the selection process. Respondent No.3 on strength of securing 62.45% of marks i.e., highest among the other candidates, was selected for the said post. Respondent No.4 secured 61% marks and got second place whereas the appellant secured only 59.87% marks and placed on third position in the waiting list. Aggrieved by non-selection, the appellant approached before this Court in W.P.(S) No.4094/2013 which was disposed of with a direction to avail alternative remedy of appeal or revision before the competent authority. The appellant/petitioner, accordingly, preferred an appeal under Section 308 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 before the 3 Collector, Balod who affirmed the selection and appointment of Respondent No.3 on the post of Teacher (Municipal) and rejected the appeal of the Petitioner vide Order dated 3.4.2014 which has been upheld by the Commissioner Durg Division, Durg by its Order dated 20.11.2014. The said order was put to challenge before the learned Single Bench alleging that since the post was kept for Unreserved (Female) category and minimum qualification for which was 60 percent marks in TET examination whereas, the respondents No.3&4 were having less than 60 percent marks in TET, therefore, they were not entitled to participate in the said selection process. 3 Learned Single Judge, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as material produced before it, dismissed the petition relying upon various judgments of Supreme Court. Hence this writ appeal. 4 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5 The appellant herein as well as the respondents No.3&4 all belongs to Other Backward Class. The appellant and respondents No.3&4 secured 61.49, 52.70 and 56.75 percent marks respectively in TET examination. Among other criteria, the qualifying marks prescribed for said post was 60 percent marks in TET examination for unreserved category. There was relaxation of 10 percent marks in TET examination for OBC/ST/SC candidates i.e. 50 percent in TET. Since parties to dispute all belongs to OBC category, they were given the benefit of relaxation of 10 percent marks in TET, and therefore, they were eligible for further selection process by the respondent authorities. After 4 awarding separate points on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in 12th, Graduation, D.Ed/BLD/B.Ed and TET examination, the respondent No.3 herein scored highest marks i.e. 62.45 whereas, the present appellant secured only 59.87 marks. Thus, it cannot be said the appointment order issued in favour of respondent No.3 was bad in law in any manner. The contention of the appellant that since the post was for unreserved category and private respondents were having less than 60 percent marks in TET, therefore they were not entitled to participate in the selections process availing the relaxation criterai is without any basis as all parties to dispute were given equal treatment of relaxation by 10 percent in TET. 15 percent marks obtained in TET were assigned to each candidates and that is the reason of appellant awarding more points on this aspect (i.e. 9.22 points) as compared to private respondents. Position would have been different if she would have secured more points on other criteria i.e. marks in 12th, Graduation, D.Ed/BLD/B.Ed examination. Even otherwise, relaxation given in educational qualification making a candidate eligible to participate in selection process would not be treated as availing benefits in the recruitment. Thus, considering all these aspects, learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/appellant herein, in which we find no good reason to arrive at a different conclusion. 6 In writ appeal no interference is warranted in the order passed by the Single Judge unless palpable infirmities are being shown in the impugned order. From perusal of entire material placed on record, we 5 do not find any such infirmities or irregularities in the order passed by learned Single Judge warranting interference of this court. 7 Therefore, we do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the findings recorded by learned Single Judge and the writ appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder