1 2025:CGHC:10985-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 156 of 2025 Ku. Indu Sahu D/o Shri Laxmi Nath Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Lalpur, Tahsil Bagbahara, Revenue Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Forest, New Mantralaya Bhawan, Raipur C.G. 2. The Collector, Mahasamund, Dist Mahasamund (C.G.) 3. Divisionala Forest OfÏcer, General Forest Division Mahasamund, Distt Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 4. Girish Kumar Sahu S/o Sitaram Sahu Aged About 27 Years OfÏce of General Forest Division, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 5. Smt. Rizwana Khan, Aged About 44 Years R/o Harif Manzil, Raja Talab, Nai Basti, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.03.06 18:42:25 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06 .03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Palash Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufÏcient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 177 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2176 of 2014 (Ku. Indu Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the State Government issued an advertisement on 17.01.2013 for filling various posts in the Forest Department. The appellant applied against 8 posts of Assistant Grade-III in General Forest Division-Mahasamund out of which 1 post was reserved for OBC (open) category. An appointment order was issued on 3 05.02.2014 wherein seven candidates were declared selected for the said post and the appellant finished in the 8th place, therefore, she was left out of the select list. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant participated in the examination and secured 74.88 marks, but her name was left out of the merit list and an appointment order was issued only to seven candidates. She further submitted that the Department arbitrarily reduced the number of vacancies and one Rizwana Khan/respondent No.5 was granted compassionate appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-III. She also submitted that the appellant could have found her place at Sl.No. 8, if the respondent authorities had not committed such an error. She further argued that the respondent authorities had not followed the selection process and rules and denied the valuable right which ought to have been given to the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant states that being aggrieved by this arbitrary omission, the appellant submitted representation dated 11.02.2014 and 12.02.2014 before respondent No. 3 and the Collector, Mahasamund, highlighting the procedural irregularities in the selection process. He further states that upon the instance of the appellant’s letter, the respondent No. 3 on 12.03.2014 wrote a clarification letter to the Collector stating that respondent No. 5/Rizwana Khan has been granted compassionate appointment on 01.01.2014 against the vacancy of Assistant Grade-III upon the endorsement of the Conservator of forest. 7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that that the appointment of respondent No. 5/Rizwana Khan, on 4 compassionate grounds, directly against a vacancy designated for competitive selection, violates the fundamental principle that compassionate appointments are subject to existing vacancies and cannot encroach upon merit-based posts. He also contended that such an action is not only against recruitment rules, but also violates the doctrine of fairness in public employment. He would submit that being aggrieved by the arbitrary and unreasonable act of the respondent No. 2 to appoint respondent No. 5 by substituting a vacancy of a ‘competitive examination’ with ‘compassionate appointment’ without any prior information or notice, the appellant approached the Hon’ble High Court in WPS No. 2176 of 2014, which was dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2024. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that it is evident from the letter dated 12.03.2014 (Annexure A/6 in the writ petition) that the appointment of respondent No. 5 was done only after it was endorsed by the Conservator of Forest. Notably, respondent No. 5 was appointed nearly a month before the declaration of the selection list, clearly indicating that that appointment was pre-determined, by passing the due selection process and without determine any provision to redraw the quota of reservation roster from 8 to 7 candidates. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 04.07.2024 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. He further submitted that initially, 8 posts of Assistant Grade-III were advertised. Later on, it was reduced to 7 posts 5 because of the compassionately appointed candidate, i.e. respondent No.5 who belonged to the general category; following which advertised vacant post of General (female) category was filled and an appointment order against the rest of the advertised posts was issued by respondent No. 3. He also submits that it is evident from the advertisement itself that the recruiting authority reserves the right to increase or decrease the advertised posts. It is also evident that the candidate who has been selected under the OBC (open) category i.e. respondent No. 4 secured 83.4 marks which is more than the marks scored by the appellant (74.88 marks), hence her candidature could not be considered. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 11. While passing the impugned order, learned Single Judge held that from a perusal of the documents placed on the record, it is quite vivid that the appellant scored lesser marks than the candidate who got a place in the select list against OBC category which makes her selection against the OBC category impossible. Further, it is very clear from the advertisement that the number of vacancies can be increased or decreased at the discretion of the authority, thus, reducing the number of vacancies from 8 to 7 is also not bad in law. 12. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed 6 any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan