1 2025:CGHC:16031 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3498 of 2017 1 - Bal Govind S/o Late Shri Ramnath, Aged About 35 Years R/o Katkona Colliery, Police Station And Post Katkona, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The General Manager, S E C L, Seepat Road Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Area Personnel Manager, Baikunthpur Area, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati, Advocate holding the brief of Mr.D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records of the case from the respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 12/17.07.2017, so far it relates to the rejection of candidature of the petitioner, along REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- with notification dated 22.03.2017, so far it relates to shortage category, debarring the petitioner from participating in the selection process. 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. Prajapati, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that while making recruitment in an open recruitment process vide notification dated 22.03.2017, the respondents debarred certain categories of employees including the category of the petitioner on the ground that there was a shortage of staff on that category. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the categorization is arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory and not based on any rational integra. Neither in the appointment order nor in any of the terms and conditions of services, it has been imposed as a condition on the petitioner that he will not be entitled to participate in the recruitment process for appointment to other posts. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shukla, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/SECL would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Prajapati. He would submit that the petitioner was permitted to make a fresh application pursuant to the interim order dated 31.07.2017. He would further submit that the other 17 aspirants submitted their applications and were permitted to participate in the recruitment for the post of Security Guard but the petitioner failed to submit a fresh application, therefore, he was not permitted. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner failed to submit 3 a fresh application pursuant to the interim order dated 31.07.2017, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha