1 2026:CGHC:15699-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 274 of 2026 Khileshwari D/o Kishan Kumar Aged About 26 Years R/o- Village- Bharritola, Post- Chipra, Distt.- Balod (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Producer Co-Operative Federation Ltd., Vandhan Bhawan, Sector- 24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector Balod, Distt. Balod, (C.G.) 3. Managing Director Distt. Minor Forest Producer Co- Operative Federation Ltd., Dalli Road, Balod, Distt.- Balod (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.04.07 17:45:19 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07 .04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State, and Mr. Syed Majid Ali, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, on I.A. No. 1 of 2026, an application seeking condonation of delay. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons assigned in the application, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2026 is allowed and the delay of 56 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner against the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2025 of 2023 (Khileshwari vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal has been filed challenging the selection list dated 31.10.2022 issued by respondent No. 3, whereby candidates were selected for the post of Manager in the Primary Minor Forest Produce Society, Kusumkasa, District Balod, under the control of the respondent authorities. 3 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the advertisement issued for the said post prescribed the minimum qualification as 10+2 along with knowledge of computers and did not stipulate grant of any additional weightage for higher qualifications. It is contended that although the advertisement referred to the Service Rules, 2016, it did not specifically provide that candidates possessing higher qualifications would be given additional marks. Therefore, according to the appellant, the selection committee could not have granted weightage beyond the terms of the advertisement. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant applied strictly in terms of the advertisement and subsequently came to know that additional qualifications were considered for awarding marks, which were neither disclosed nor notified. It is contended that such action is arbitrary and contrary to settled principles governing recruitment. It is also urged that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the selection process ought to have been confined strictly to the criteria mentioned in the advertisement. 7. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of non-submission of certain documents, without properly appreciating the material available on record. It is submitted that the conditions of recruitment must strictly conform to the advertisement and any deviation therefrom vitiates the selection process. Hence, this appeal. 4 8. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the selection process has been conducted strictly in accordance with the governing rules and there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the respondents warranting interference. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the appellant had failed to submit complete academic documents at the relevant time. It is pointed out that though the appellant had submitted mark-sheets of B.Sc. (IT) Part-I and Part-II, the mark-sheet of B.Sc. (IT) Part-III was not submitted during the selection process and has been produced only subsequently. It is contended that in absence of complete documents, the appellant’s candidature could not be fully considered and she was not entitled to be awarded marks on that basis. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the material available on record. 11. Upon consideration, it is evident that the appellant failed to submit complete and requisite documents at the relevant stage of the selection process. In recruitment matters, candidates are required to strictly comply with the conditions of the advertisement and submit all necessary documents within the prescribed time. Any deficiency in this regard cannot be permitted to be cured at a later stage to the prejudice of other candidates. 12. The learned Single Judge has rightly taken note of this aspect and has held that in absence of submission of complete documents, the appellant could not be granted the benefit of marks corresponding to 5 such qualifications. This Court finds no infirmity in the said reasoning. 13. Insofar as the contention regarding consideration of additional qualifications is concerned, the same does not advance the case of the appellant, as even otherwise, the appellant herself failed to place complete material before the authorities at the relevant time. Therefore, no prejudice can be said to have been caused warranting interference in the selection process. 14. This Court is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the facts and the law applicable to the case and has passed a well-reasoned order, which does not call for any interference in exercise of intra-Court appellate jurisdiction. 15. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan