1 2026:CGHC:19212 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3377 of 2017 Harish Abdullah S/o Shri Hasan Abdullah Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Rasulpur Masjid, Ward No. 35, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Women And Child Department, Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner, Women And Child Welfare Department, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Secretary, Women And Child Welfare Department, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - District Programe Officer, Women And Child Department Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector, Surguja, District Surguja, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : None in two rounds. For State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 2 10.1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the letter dated 08/05/2017 (Annexure P/1). 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions quashing the advertisement dated 18.07.2017. 2. Facts of the case in brief are as under:- A. An advertisement was issued on 12.02.2014 for appointment to the post of ‘District Child Protection Officer’ on contract basis for a period of two years. B. The petitioner submitted his application form along with relevant documents; thereafter, an admit card was issued and the petitioner participated in the examination. C. The result was declared and the petitioner secured first position in the merit list. However, the examination was cancelled vide order dated 29.06.2015 and a fresh advertisement dated 13.10.2015 was issued for filling up the said post. D. The petitioner again participated in the recruitment process and secured position in the merit list. On 20.03.2016, again the examination was cancelled and a third advertisement was issued to fill up the post of ‘District Child Protection Officer’ in the month of 27.09.2016. The petitioner again participated in the recruitment process and secured a position in the merit list. The said examination was also cancelled vide order dated 08.05.2017 on the ground that the members of the committee were not present and the examination was conducted contrary to the guidelines; thereafter, a fresh advertisement 3 was issued on 18.07.2017. 3. It is contended that though the petitioner secured a position in the merit list, he was not offered appointment and the examinations were cancelled by the authorities without assigning sufficient reasons. Prayer has been made to quash the proposal to cancel the third recruitment process and to quash the order impugned dated 08/05/2017 (Annexure P/1) & advertisement dated 18.07.2017. 4. Mr. Anil S. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that in all three selection processes, the examinations were not conducted in accordance with law and proper merit lists were not prepared, therefore, the authorities, after receiving complaints, cancelled the selection processes. He would further submit that the advertisement for the post of ‘District Child Protection Officer’ was issued on contract basis for a period of two years and the said period has already been expired; thus, the petition has become infructuous. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 6. A perusal of the documents, it is apparent that an advertisement dated 12.02.2014 was initially issued for filling the vacant post of District Child Protection Officer on a contractual basis for a period of two years and on 29.06.2015 the selection process was cancelled; thereafter, the second & third selection processes were subsequently cancelled by the authorities on the ground that the members of the committee were not present and the examination was conducted contrary to the guidelines. Thereafter, a fourth advertisement was issued on 18.07.2017 for the same post. 7. The State has assigned various reasons for the cancellation of these selection processes. However, despite cancellation of the first and second processes, the authorities failed to exercise due diligence while issuing the third advertisement, and again selection process of third 4 advertisement was cancelled and fourth advertisement was issued on 18.07.2017. 8. Since the contractual period was only for two years and the same has already been expired, no relief can now be granted in favour of the petitioner. However, at the same time, respondent No. 2 is directed to look into the matter and take appropriate action against the erring officers. 9. Accordingly, the petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim