1 2025:CGHC:59112-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 258 of 2025 Smt. Rajkumari Gendele W/o Suraj Gendele, aged about 32 years R/o Village - Mudhipar, Tehsil - Bilha , District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 4) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Its Department of Panchayat, Mantralaya Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Tehsil Bilha, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Project Officer Integrated Child Development Scheme, Tehsil - Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Sarpanch Village Panchayat Mudhipar, Tehsil - Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Kumari Maheshwari Soni D/o Salikram Soni, aged about 21 years R/o Village - Mudhipar, Tehsil - Bilha, District - Bilaspur (C.G.), (Petitioner) ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State For Respondent No.5 : : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Advocate General Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla and Mr. Vikash Ghritlahre, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 0 5 . 12 .202 5 1. Heard Ms. Seema Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Advocate General, ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 appearing for the State/respondent and Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla along with Mr. Vikash Ghritlahre, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.5. 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 respondent No.4 in the writ petition has challenged the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.1444 of 2018 (Kumari Maheshwari Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ respondent No.5 herein has been allowed in part by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are under : (a) An advertisement for one post of Anganwadi Worker, Centre Mudhipar, Janpad Panchayat Bilha, District Bilaspur was published by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bilha on 30.09.2014. The last date for the submission of the application form was 21.10.2014. Four candidates submitted their applications including the appellant and writ petitioner / respondent No.5 herein. (b) The writ petitioner was appointed vide order dated 09.12.2015 as she was at serial No.1 on the select list. The appellant preferred an appeal before the concerned Collector challenging therein the order of appointment issued in favour of the writ petitioner. The Collector vide order dated 12.04.2017 3 allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant and cancelled the appointment of the writ petitioner inter alia on the ground that the writ petitioner was wrongly awarded ‘10 marks’ for her caste, as the temporary caste certificate was issued on 03.02.2014 which was effective for a period of six months which expired on 03.08.2014, whereas the last date for the submission of the application form was 21.10.2014. (c) The writ petitioner challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, Division Bilaspur and the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2017 affirming the findings recording by the Collector. (d) Being aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner has preferred a writ petitioner before this Court being WPS No. 1444 of 2018, which was allowed in part by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 25.02.2025, setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Collector and affirmed by the Commissioner and directed the respondent authorities to issue an appointment order in favour of the writ petitioner forthwith. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, present appeal has been filed by the appellant / respondent No.4 in the said writ petition. 5. This Court vide order dated 06.05.2025 has directed the District Magistrate, Bilaspur to file his personal affidavit disclosing the date of the caste certificate, which is alleged to have been issued by 4 the Tahsildar, as to whether it was issued on 03.07.2014 or 03.02.2014 in respect of the writ petitioner / respondent No.5, namely, Ku. Maheshwari Soni, D/o Salikram Soni. 6. In compliance of the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by this Court, District Magistrate, Bilaspur has filed an affidavit on 12.06.2025. Relevant portion of the said affidavit reads as under : “4. It is respectfully submitted that the basic facts of the instant case is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Angan Badi Karyakarta vide order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bilha, District- Bilaspur. It is respectfully submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was challenged by Smt. Rajkumari Gendele before the Collector, Bilaspur under section 91 of the Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam Act, 1993. It is submitted that the order dated 12.04.2017 was passed by the Collector, setting aside the appointment of the petitioner. It is submitted that the bare perusal of the order dated 12.04.2017 (Annexure P/7) in the writ petition makes it clear that the temporary caste certificate of the petitioner was issued by the Tehsildar, Bilha on 03.02.2014 and the said certificate was valid for a period of 6 months from the date of its issuance.” 5. It is further submitted that applications were invited for filling up the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta/Sahayak between the period of 04.10.2014 to 21.10.2014. It was held by the Collector in its order dated 12.04.20217 (Annexure P/7) that the petitioner was not eligible for getting 10 marks on the basis of her caste certificate. Thus, the Collector passed the order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta and 5 further directed the CEO, Janpad Panchayat Bilha, to issue appointment order in favour of appellant Smt. Rajkumari Gendele. 6. It is further submitted that the order dated 12.04.2017 (Annexure P/7) issued by the Collector, District- Bilaspur was challenged by the petitioner Kumari Maheshwari Soni, by preferring an appeal application before the Commissioner, Bilaspur. It is submitted that the copy of the grounds taken in appeal of the petitioner makes it clear that the petitioner Maheshwari Soni has not raised any ground before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division with respect to disputing the date of issuance of temporary caste certificate issued by Tehsildar, Bilha. It is submitted that the petitioner has not made any averments in her appeal before the Commissioner, as to on which date the temporary caste certificate was issued by the Tehsildar, Bilha. A copy of the appeal application preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division is being filed and annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A-1 for the kind reference of this Hon'ble Court. 7. It is submitted that the impugned order of Collector, dated 12.04.2017 was issued against the petitioner on the ground that the temporary certificate was issued on 03.02.2014 and it was valid only for a period of 6 months, then it was for the petitioner to prove otherwise before the Commissioner. However, the petitioner Kumari Maheshwari Soni did not raise any ground before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, regarding the date of issuance of the temporary caste certificate. It is submitted that the petitioner has challenged the order of the Collector, on the ground that it was against the principals of natural justice as well as on the ground that the permanent caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner has not 6 been considered. It is submitted that the petitioner has merely relied on the permanent caste certificate and prayed for giving 10 marks, however, the permanent caste certificate so issued was not in existence at the relevant point of time. It is further submitted that it is also clear from the perusal of the order sheet of the Court of Learned Collector, Bilaspur, that the petitioner was present on 27.02.2017 before the Collector, Bilaspur and prayed for one opportunity. Considering the prayer of the petitioner, she was given next date of 16.03.2017. However, the petitioner did not appear either herself or through her counsel on 16.03.2017 before the Learned Court of Collector, Bilaspur. Copy of the relevant order sheets of the Court of Learned Collector, Bilaspur is being filed and annexed herewith collectively as ANNEXURE A/2 for the kind reference of this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that in the order dated 16.03.2017 it was further mentioned that the parties can submit their written arguments if they desire so. It is submitted that; the petitioner did not submit any return arguments before the Collector, Bilaspur. 8. It is respectfully submitted that; the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division passed the order dated 30.08.2017 upholding the order of the Collector, Bilaspur. It is submitted that the bare perusal of the order dated 30.08.2017 (Annexure P/1) makes it clear that it was observed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division; that the temporary caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was only valid for the purpose of scholarships and education and the said temporary certificate was not valid and acceptable for the purpose of employment. Therefore, the petitioner was held not eligible for getting 10 marks on the basis of the said temporary caste certificate. 9. That, it is respectfully submitted that against the 7 order of the Commissioner, dated 30.08.2017 (Annexure P/1) petitioner preferred writ petition WPS No. 1444/2018. It is submitted that; in the writ petition for the first time the petitioner took the ground that the date of the issuance of the temporary caste certificate dated 03.07.2014 has been misread as 03.02.2014 and therefore as per the petitioner the said temporary caste certificate was valid on the date of making the application. It is submitted that in para 9.2 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that the Learned Commissioner failed to consider the fact that the petitioner has valid temporary caste certificate on the date of submitting application form issued on 03.07.2014 which was valid for a period of 6 months. It is submitted that herein, it would be relevant to mention that the petitioner Kumari Maheshwari Soni, did not made any submission either before the Court of Learned Collector, Bilaspur or before the Court of Learned Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, disputing the date of issuance of temporary caste certificate dated 03.02.2014. In other words; the petitioner Kumari Maheshwari Soni raised this ground of issuance of temporary caste certificate on 03.07.2014 for the first time before this Hon'ble Court in WPS No. 1444/2018. 10. That, it is submitted that the writ petition WPS No 1444/2018 was allowed in part vide order dated 25.02.2025 considering the date of issuance of temporary caste certificate as 03.07.2014. That; it is respectfully submitted that; the deponent herein submits on the basis of the original temporary caste certificate of the petitioner Maheshwari Soni, daughter of Salik Ram, that the temporary caste certificate was issued on 03.02.2014. It is submitted that; from the original copy of the temporary caste certificate, it is clear that the temporary caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on 8 03.02.2014. It is submitted that due to some misreading 03.02.2014 has been misinterpreted as 03.07.2014. It is again submitted at the cost repetition that the correct date of issuance of temporary caste certificate, is 03.02.2014. It is submitted that a report was also called from Tehsildar- Bilha, with respect to the caste of Kumari Maheshwari Soni and the Tehsildar Bilha, vide letter dated 04.06.2025 has also mentioned the fact that the correct date of issuance of caste certificate is 03.02.2014. Earlier, due to some misreading (confusion) it was mentioned by mistake that the temporary caste certificate was issued on 03.07.2014, for which the Tehsildar Bilha, has prayed for an apology. Copy of letter dated 04.06.2025 is being filed and annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-A/3 for the kind reference of this Hon'ble Court.” 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the actual facts and law and hence is liable to be set aside. She further submitted that the petitioner / respondent No.5 has raised the ground of issuance of temporary caste certificate on 03.07.2014 for the first time before learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by her, she has never made any submission either before the Court of learned Collector or before the Court of learned Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, disputing the date of issuance of temporary caste certificate date 03.02.2014. She also submitted that it is clear from the affidavit of Collector, Bilaspur dated 12.06.2025 that temporary caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner / respondent No.5 on 03.02.2014 and due to misreading, the same has been 9 misinterpreted as 03.07.2014 by the learned Single while allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.5. She contended that the Tehsildar, Bilha in its letter dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure A/3) has specifically mentioned the fact that the correct date of issuance of caste certificate is 03.02.2014. Earlier, due to some misreading (confusion), it was mentioned by mistake that the temporary caste certificate was issued on 03.07.2014, for which the Tehsildar, Bilha has also prayed for an apology. 8. Ms. Seema Singh, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the said fact has not been brought before the learned Single Judge, as such, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.5 on the basis of submissions made by learned State counsel, which was based on instruction/report that the temporary caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on 03.07.2014 and further observing that as the last date for submission of the application form for the post of Anganwadi Worker was 21.10.2014 and the temporary caste certificate was issued on 03.07.2014 and it was valid for a period of 6 months. The said finding of the learned Single Judge is factually incorrect as it proved by the affidavit filed by the Collector, Bilaspur that the temporary caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on 03.02.2014, hence the writ appeal be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside, in the interest of justice. 10 9. Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent did not dispute the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for the writ petitioner / respondent No.5 opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the State and submitted that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, in which no interference is called for. He further submitted that so far as the temporary caste status certificate is concerned, that was issued undoubtedly on 03.07.2014, instead of 03.02.2014, which is clearly visible from the caste certificate itself. Withal, so far as the order passed by Collector Bilaspur is concerned, the Collector without examining the correct facts and without due verification, has held the proceeding in haphazard manner and by a very slipshod and laconic order, the appointment of the respondent No.5, Maheshwari Soni, was set aside by the Collector. Meaning thereby, no full-fledged inquiry was held by the Collector and at a very cursory glance, the findings have been recorded and the order of removal of the respondent No. 5 was passed. He vehemently contended that before the Collector also, the Respondent No.5 had made the averments and produced the documents that the caste status certificate has been issued on 03.07.2014. He further contended that the respondent authority 11 have not filed any documents before this Hon’ble Court to establish the fact that the caste certificate of the respondent No.5 in Revenue Case No. 3144/B-121/2013-14 issued by the Tehsildar, Bilha was issued on 03.02.2014 or 03.07.2014 and the documents filed by the Respondent alongwith the affidavit at page No. 26 is a copy of register of the Sub-Divisional Officer, which is pertaining to issuance of permanent caste certificate on 07.01.2015 in revenue case no. 186 but they did not file documents that any records of revenue case no. 186 which show that the temporary social status certificate was issued on 03.02.2014. 11. Mr. Shukla contended that the Tehsildar- Bilha issued a temporary social status certificate issued in favor of Shubham Soni, s/o Hirawan Soni, Village- Mudhipar on 17.06.2014 and its revenue case No. is 2447/B-121/13-14, on 30.06.2014, the same authority issued a temporary social status certificate in favor of Ku. Manjulata in revenue case no. 2910/B-121/13-14. On 03.07.2014, Tehsildar- Bilha, Dist Bilaspur issued a temporary social status certificate in favor of Shubhash Chandra Markam, s/o Sitaram, in Revenue case no. 3154/B-121/13-14 and on the same day, Tehsildar- Bilha, Dist - Bilaspur issued a caste certificate having revenue case no. 3144/B-121/13-14 in favour of the respondent No.5. On 07.07.2014, the same authority issued a temporary social status certificate in favor of Ku. Sushmita in revenue case no. 3274/B-121/13-14. The caste certificate issued in favor of the 12 respondent No.5 and one Shubhas Chandra Markam there is a difference of revenue case no. of 7 which clearly established the fact that the social status certificate issued in favor of respondent No.5 is 03.07.2014 and not 03.02.2014. Therefore, the caste status certificate, which was the foundation for the appointment of the respondent No. 5, was valid up to the month of December 2014. Hence, 10 additional marks which has been extended to the respondent No.5 is absolutely justifiable and there is no irregularity or illegality. Moreover, the learned Collector had not extended the full and proper opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 5 for defending her interest, meaning thereby, she was not afforded the full opportunity to give her written reply, her oral and documentary evidence whatsoever and the order was passed by the Collector in a very brief proceeding, which is highly unwarranted. 12. Mr. Shukla further argued that so far as the facts which are to be examined before the Division bench within the four corners of law, under the pedestal of equitable justice, it hardly matters whether the caste certificate was temporary in nature and in subsistence for the period of six months only. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Kumar Gijoria Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754, wherein it has held that even if the caste status certificate could not be submitted on the cut-off date of submission of form, then also subsequently produced caste status certificate is admissible 13 and the otherwise selected candidate cannot be denied appointment only on this count that the caste status certificate has been submitted later on. Non-submission of the same by reserved OBC category within cut-off date mentioned advertisement rendering ineligible otherwise selected candidate only on ground would amount to denial of equality of opportunity contemplated under Article 14, 15, 16 and 39 of the Constitution of India. He further placed reliance on judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan High Court reported in (2024) 2 SCC 671, wherein it has been observed and propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the submission of caste certificate subsequently after the cut-off date does not debar or deprive the otherwise selected candidate of the appointment. 13. Mr. Shukla also argued that so far as the caste certificate is concerned that is not the document of eligibility and that does not cause any prejudice to the other candidates. Therefore, it cannot be treated as any educational or other eligibility certificates or testimonials. In the case at hand, firstly the temporary caste certificate was submitted by respondent No. 5 at the time of submission of the application form and subsequently on the date of verification of document, the permanent caste certificate which was issued on dated 07.01.2015 was submitted and accepted by the Project Officer. If the permanent caste status certificate has been submitted before the Competent Authority on 10.12.2015, as 14 in the appointment letter it was directed that before joining, the documents have to be verified. So, the respondent No.5 presented herself before the Project Officer along with all the certificates, testimonials on 10.12.2015. So, even if on the date of verification of documents, the permanent caste status certificate was submitted by the respondent No. 5, there was no any illegality in the light of the various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh. Therefore, looking to the above scenario, it makes no difference whether the caste certificate was submitted till the cut-off date or thereafter. The thing which matters is whether the respondent No.5 is having the caste status certificate or not and she belongs to that particular caste or not. There is not a single whisper in the entire reply and memo of writ appeal filed by the appellant that the temporary or permanent caste certificate of the respondent No.5 was spurious and fabricated or that was obtained by playing fraud. The genuineness of the document has not been subjected to challenge. The only thing and objection which has been raised by the appellant is that the caste status certificate has been submitted after the cut-off date. So, the appellant has no case and her appeal deserves to be dismissed. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 15. From perusal of the impugned order and materials available on 15 record, particularly the affidavit filed by the Collector, Bilaspur dated 12.06.2025, which has been filed in compliance of the Court’s order dated 06.05.2025, it transpires that the temporary caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner / respondent No.5 on 03.02.2014 and due to misreading, the same has been misinterpreted as 03.07.2014 by the learned Single while allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.5. It further transpires that the Tehsildar, Bilha in its letter dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure A/3) has specifically mentioned the fact that the correct date of issuance of caste certificate is 03.02.2014. Earlier, due to some misreading (confusion), it was mentioned by mistake that the temporary caste certificate was issued on 03.07.2014, for which the Tehsildar, Bilha has also prayed for an apology. 16. It further transpires that the said fact has not been brought before the learned Single Judge, as such, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.5 in part on the basis of submissions made by learned State counsel, which was based on instruction/report submitted by the Tehsildar, Bilha that the temporary caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner / respondent No.5 on 03.07.2014 and further observing that as the last date for submission of the application form for the post of Anganwadi Worker was 21.10.2014 and the temporary caste certificate was issued on 03.07.2014 and 16 it was valid for a period of 6 months. The said finding of the learned Single Judge is factually incorrect as it proved from the affidavit filed by the Collector, Bilaspur that the temporary caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner / respondent No.5 on 03.02.2014. 17. Further bare perusal of the order dated 12.04.2017 passed by the Collector, setting aside the appointment of the writ petitioner / respondent No.5 (Annexure P/7) in the writ petition makes it clear that the temporary caste certificate of the petitioner was issued by the Tehsildar, Bilha on 03.02.2014 and the said certificate was valid for a period of 6 months from the date of its issuance, then it was for the petitioner / respondent No.5 to prove otherwise before the Commissioner. However, she did not raise any ground before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, regarding the date of issuance of the temporary caste certificate. 18. Though, it is settled law that if the caste status certificate could not be submitted on the cut-off date of submission of form, then also subsequently produced caste status certificate is admissible and otherwise selected candidate cannot be denied appointment only on this count that the caste status certificate has been submitted later on. But, in the instant case, there was additional 10 marks given on the basis of alleged caste certificate which was admittedly issued on 03.02.2014 and was valid for only 6 months The advertisement for one post of Anganwadi Worker, Centre 17 Mudhipar, Janpad Panchayat Bilha, District Bilaspur was published by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Bilha on 30.09.2014 and the last date for the submission of the application form was 21.10.2014. It is admitted position that on the last date of submission of the application i.e. 21.10.2014, the caste certificate of the petitioner / respondent No.5 was not valid as the same was expired way back on 02.08.2014 and therefore, by giving 10 marks based on the invalid caste certificate and placing her name was placed on 1st position showing her total marks as “44.92”, whereas the appellant was given “37.08” marks and if 10 might not have been given to the petitioner / respondent No.5, he could not have been selected. As such, the reliance placed by the respondent No.5 is distinguishable on the facts of present case. 19. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the observation made by the learned Single Judge, which was based on instruction/report that the temporary caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on 03.07.2014 and further observing that as the last date for submission of the application form for the post of Anganwadi Worker was 21.10.2014 and the temporary caste certificate was issued on 03.07.2014 and it was valid for a period of 6 months. The said finding of the learned Single Judge is factually incorrect as it proved by the affidavit filed by the Collector, Bilaspur that the temporary caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on 03.02.2014 and not on 18 03.07.2014, as such, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has committed grave illegality in passing the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside. 20. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 1444 of 2018 is hereby set aside. Consequent thereto, the writ petition filed by the respondent No.5/writ petitioner is also dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra