1 2026:CGHC:26828 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4960 of 2026 Laxmi Priya Das D/o Pradeep Kishor Das Aged About 31 Years R/o- 2/61 Tulsi Awas, Rajkishor Nagar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Power, Room Number- 101, 1st Floor, Shram Shakti Bhavan, Behind Reserve Bank of India, Rafi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi, Delhi 2 - N. T. P. C. Limited Through Its Chief Managing Director Scope Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi, Road, New Delhi, 110003 3 - N.T.P.C. Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Post Sipat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate For UOI/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Triveni Shankar Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 01/07/2026 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs : 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.07.02 18:04:23 +0530 2 call for records with regards to case of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to issue appointment letter or joining letter in respect to petitioner considering the offer letter previously issued to her, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the complaints/representation of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to enquire into the grievance of petitioner after constituting an independent committee, in the interest of justice. 10.5 That, any other relief in the discretion of this Hon’ble Court. Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances, may also be provided to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process initiated by the respondent-NTPC Limited for appointment to the post of Engineering Executive Trainees - 2019 through GATE-2019. In the said process, the petitioner secured 57.94 marks, which was well above the prescribed 3 qualifying marks for her category, and consequently came to be declared successful in the recruitment process. Subsequently, the respondent issued an Offer Letter dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure-P/3) requiring the petitioner to join the post. However, when the petitioner reported for joining in pursuance of the said offer, no appointment or joining was permitted by the respondent authorities. Despite repeated approaches, no satisfactory explanation was furnished regarding the status of her appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations and sought information through the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the concerned authorities, including IIT Chennai and NTPC, but either the information was denied on technical grounds or no meaningful information was supplied. The petitioner also submitted complaints before the Vigilance Department of NTPC, the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, besides addressing various emails, legal notices and representations. However, despite such repeated efforts, no effective action was taken and the petitioner was neither permitted to join nor informed of the reasons for withholding her appointment. Aggrieved by the continued inaction of the respondent authorities despite issuance of the offer letter, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions for issuance of appointment/joining, consideration of her representations and an independent enquiry into the matter. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner successfully qualified the recruitment process and was duly issued an offer of appointment by the respondent authorities. It is contended that after 4 issuance of the offer letter, the respondents were under a legal obligation either to permit the petitioner to join or to communicate valid reasons for withholding her appointment. However, neither course was adopted. It is further submitted that despite making repeated representations, RTI applications, complaints before the Vigilance Department, the Department of Administrative Reforms and other authorities, the petitioner was kept in complete darkness regarding the fate of her appointment. The respondent authorities allegedly failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation and continued to remain inactive. It is argued that such arbitrary and unexplained inaction is violative of the principles of fairness and transparency in public employment and has resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is prayed that this Court may direct the respondents to produce the relevant recruitment records, issue the appointment/joining letter in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the letter of offer, decide her representations and conduct an independent enquiry into the matter so that the grievance of the petitioner is redressed in accordance with law. 4. (a) Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent- NTPC submits that the entire writ petition is founded upon false, fabricated and misconceived facts and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. According to the respondent, the petitioner has wrongly relied upon credentials and recruitment particulars which, as per the official records of NTPC, exclusively belong to another candidate, namely Divyanshu Sanjay Satpute, and not to the petitioner. The respondent submits that the registration number and GATE-2019 registration details 5 relied upon by the petitioner stand verified from the official records and conclusively establish that the petitioner has no concern with the said recruitment credentials. (b) It is further submitted that the recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement No. 05/18 was concluded several years ago. All eligible and successful candidates who reported within the stipulated period were duly permitted to complete joining formalities and no appointment or joining remained pending thereafter. The respondent asserts that no offer of appointment or joining is pending in favour of the petitioner. It is contended that all official recruitment communications were issued only through the official email ID recruitment@ntpc.co.in. The emails relied upon by the petitioner admittedly emanated from personal g-mail accounts, which neither belong to NTPC nor to any authorised officer of the respondent. The respondent specifically submits that no employee by the names reflected in those personal email IDs was ever associated with the NTPC Recruitment Cell and, therefore, the correspondence relied upon by the petitioner is wholly unauthorised and fabricated. It is also submitted that the petitioner herself was aware of the doubtful nature of such communications, as she had questioned the authenticity of those personal email IDs and approached NTPC through its official email only in October, 2025. Despite such knowledge, the petitioner continued to rely upon those unauthorised communications and thereafter sought to fasten liability upon NTPC. (c) Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner failed to exercise reasonable diligence in verifying the authenticity of the 6 communications and, therefore, any alleged loss occasioned due to acts of unknown third parties cannot be attributed to the respondent. The respondent also contends that the petitioner has made repeated false complaints and representations on the basis of fabricated material and has been cautioned that appropriate civil and criminal proceedings may be initiated in accordance with law. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner has failed to establish any enforceable legal right against the respondent or any corresponding statutory duty cast upon the respondent warranting issuance of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is noteworthy to mention here that the NTPC issued the subject advertisement under the heading of ‘Recruitment of Engineering Exectuive Trainees – 2019 through GATE – 2019” wherein the selection process described to the effect that Eligible candidates will have to appear for Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE)-2019. Based on the GATE-2019 marks and requirement, candidate will be shortlisted for further selection process (Online Behavioral/Aptitude Test, followed by GD and Interview). The final merit list will be prepared based on 85% weightage of GATE-2019 marks, 5% weightage of GD marks and 10% weightage of interview marks. Please note that for ET-2019 recruitment, GATE scores of 2019 will only be valid. In the advertisement, the compensation package shown in the pay scale of Rs.60,000-1,80,000 at the basic pay of Rs.60,000/- during one year 7 training and the region of posting will be allotted upon joining. 7. According to the petitioner, she participated in the selection process and secured the offer letter in her favour on 5.12.2024 for the post of ‘Assistant Manager at NTPC Limited”. As per the said offer letter, the annual salary package is Rs.12.00 lacs; work schedule 10 am to 5 pm and the job location : in – office. Upon bare perusal of the advertisement and the alleged offer letter, it is quite vivid that the nature of post, package, work place are absolutely different and the same are not tallying with other. 8. The principal relief sought by the petitioner is founded upon an alleged offer of appointment and subsequent communications purportedly issued during the recruitment process of Engineering Executive Trainees through GATE-2019. However, the respondent has categorically disputed the very foundation of the petition by placing on record that the recruitment credentials relied upon by the petitioner do not pertain to her but belong to another candidate and that the recruitment process under Advertisement No. 05/18 had long since attained finality after completion of the joining formalities of all successful candidates. The respondent has further specifically asserted that all official recruitment communications were issued only through the authorised NTPC email domain and that the communications relied upon by the petitioner emanated from personal email accounts having no connection whatsoever with the respondent. Except making bald assertions, the petitioner has failed to place any cogent material to establish that the alleged communications were issued by any competent authority of 8 NTPC or that any subsisting offer of appointment continued to remain operative in her favour. 9. It is well settled that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked for enforcement of an existing legal right. The burden lies upon the petitioner to establish such right by reliable and unimpeachable material. In the present case, serious disputes regarding the authenticity of the documents relied upon by the petitioner arise, which cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings, particularly when the respondent has categorically denied their genuineness. 10. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness, illegality or infringement of any enforceable legal right attributable to the respondent. No ground is made out for issuance of any writ or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No order as to costs. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu