1 2026:CGHC:20000 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5861 of 2022 1 - Vikas Kumar Patwar S/o Shri Vishnu Dayal Patwar Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 20, Behind Civil Court, Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Selection Committee Family Court, Manendragarh, District Korea 2 - The President (Selection Committee) Family Court, Manendragarh, District Korea 3 - The Office Of The Family Court Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh 4 - The Registrar General Honble Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Kuldeep Kumar Jaiswal S/o Mahesh Prasad Jaiswal Age In Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order, R/o Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh Through The Office Of The Family Court, Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh 6 - Nawaz Sharif S/o Ataullah Khan Age In Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order, R/o Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh Through The Office Of The Family Court, Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh 7 - Ravi Kumar Sonkar S/o Lallulal Sonkar Age In Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order, R/o Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh Through The Office Of The Family Court, Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh 8 - Saroj Minj D/o Nirmal Minj Age In Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order, R/o Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh Through The Office Of The Family Court, Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh 9 - Pushpa Bai D/o Khasru Ram Age In Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order, R/o Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh Through The Office Of The Family Court, Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh 10 - Shaini Kujur S/o Sushil Kujur Age In Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order, R/o Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh Through The Office Of The Family Court, Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Surbhi Yadav, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate -2- For Respondents : Mr.Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.04.2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s) : “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash the impugned order dated 21.08.2022 (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direct the respondent no. 1 to 3 to conduct the examination afresh as per advertisement dated 06.01.2022 and law after duly communication the date of examination to the petitioner. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass an appropriate order or issue writ as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The facts in brief are that an advertisement was floated by respondent No.2 for various posts including two posts of Assistant Grade-III on 06.01.2022. It was specifically mentioned in the advertisement that applications for the posts would be sent through registered/speed post in the prescribed form along with necessary documents. As required two envelops affixed with Rs.25/- postal receipts were also annexed along with the application form by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his application form and date of typing examination was scheduled on 21.08.2022. The admit cards were uploaded in the website of District and Sessions Court Koriya, Baikunthpur (C.G.). The petitioner did not receive postal communication, therefore, he could not participate in the skill test. Subsequently, result was declared and a select list was published on 21.08.2022. After publication of select list, the petitioner came to know that skill test has already been conducted. Thereafter, this petition was filed on 07.09.2022. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that according to the conditions enumerated in the advertisement, respondent No.2 was required to communicate date of examination through post. She would contend that as respondent No.2 failed to communicate the petitioner, he could not participate in the examination and thus, there was negligence on the part of respondent No.2. She would argue that respondent No.2 may be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner. It is also submitted that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to conduct a fresh examination. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Mukhopadhay, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 would oppose the submissions. He would submit that it was not mandatory to send admit card or intimation to the candidates through registered post or post. He would further submit that as per the conditions of the advertisement, the candidates would be communicated with separately and information would be affixed on the notice board of the Court. It is also contended that according to the conditions appended with the advertisement, candidate who did not receive any communication from respondent No.2 had liberty to approach the Selection Committee one hour prior to time scheduled for examination. Mr. Mukhopadhyay would argue that the petitioner is a resident of Ward No.20, Manendragarh, Koriya and his house is situated just behind Civil Court building. He was not vigilant and he never inquired after submission of application form, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Pankaj Kumar, reported in 2022(1) SCC 335. -4- 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. In the instant case, the petitioner submitted his application form for the post of Assistant Grade-III but did not receive any communication with regard to skill test and therefore, he could not participate in the said examination. The petitioner has blamed respondent No.2/Selection Committee. 8. Perusal of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement would make it clear that the information/notification would be affixed on the notice board of the Court. The petitioner never approached respondent No.2 to ascertain the date of examination. He approached the respondent authorities after date of examination and publication of the select list. 9. In the advertisement, there is no condition to communicate the candidates with regard to date of examination through post rather it is specifically stated that further information would be affixed in the notice board of the Court. The date of examination was floated in the portal of the District and Sessions Court, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, thus, it cannot be said that public at large or candidates were not communicated properly. The petitioner cannot take benefit of his own wrong. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pankaj Kumar (supra), has held that the casual attitude of the candidate had brought about the situation. It is also observed that the candidate was not vigilant. Relevant para 11 is reproduced herein below : “11.Further, from the very nature of consideration made by the High Court, it is seen that it was the casual attitude of the respondent which had brought about the situation though the High Court has mildly put it as, inadvertence and provided an opportunity. It is no doubt true that as contended by the respondent in the objection statement, an opportunity was granted to about 151 5 candidates to take part in the selection process as indicated in the notice dated 14-1-2019 issued pursuant to directions issued by the High Court in the writ petitions which were filed. It is to be noticed that the respondent was not vigilant at the earliest point in time but it is only after such consideration had been made by the High Court and an opportunity was granted to certain other persons, the respondent had chosen to file the writ petition by merely contending that he had made a request to permit him to take part in the process on 15-1- 2019 and he had not been permitted.” 11. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-referred matter, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 21.08.2022 passed by respondent No.1. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha