Chhattisgarh High Court dismisses PIL seeking declaration of appointment order passed in favour of private respondent as illegal

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking  declaration  that the impugned appointment order  passed in favour of the Private Respondent (respondent No.4) by the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal and non est in the eyes of law, resultantly all the consequential service benefits rendered to the respondent No.4 is arbitrary and illegal and thus the impugned appointment order be directed to be set aside.

The facts of the case are that, the respondent No.4  who is rendering his duties and presently posted as Engineer-in-Chief in the office of respondent authorities, was born at Tumsar, District Bhandara (Maharashtra) and was declared as Schedule Caste in the State of Maharashtra. 

In the year 1992 the post of Assistant Engineer was advertised for which Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (respondent No.3) has conducted the recruitment process, in which many candidates have participated including the respondent No.4 as a Schedule Caste Candidate and after completion of the said recruitment process, on 24.08.1994 total 7 candidates were selected for being appointed for the said post on probation period for 2 years at the respective places, however, a perusal of the said select list nowhere reflect the name of the respondent No.4, which means the respondent No.4 was not selected in the said recruitment process and   thus, does not fall within the zone of consideration for appointment of the said post. 

Resultantly by any stretch of imagination respondent No.4 should not be considered for appointment on the said post. In order to further demonstrate the impugned appointment order is passed with ill will, malafide intention and oblique motive to extend undue advantage to the respondent No.4 in most arbitrary and illegal manner. 

It is pertinent to mention here that after issuance of the selection list dated 24.08.1994, on 29.03.2024 the respondent No.3 has issued a letter to one of the selected candidate stating that there is probability of change of merit list, as one post of Schedule Tribe is withheld and inspite of withholding one post which is reserved for the candidate belonging to the Schedule Tribe, does not bring the respondent No.4 within the zone of consideration as respondent No.4 applied as a Schedule Caste Candidate, as a result of which the respondent No.4 does not get any right to be appointed for the said sanctioned post of the Assistant Engineer. 

Thus, appointed respondent No.4 who was not even within the zone of consideration to the said post vide impugned order . The respondent No.4 being the resident of State of Maharashtra and member of Schedule Caste in the State of Maharashtra, has applied for the said post as a Schedule Caste Candidate in the State of erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and was considered as Schedule Caste Candidate and was given appointment for the said post withhold for the Schedule Tribe, is arbitrary and illegal for the reason that the respondent No.4 was a Schedule Caste in the State of Maharashtra who can not claim benefit of reservation in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. 

Further from the perusal of the impugned appointment order the Division Bench of Chief Justice  Ramesh Sinha  and Justice Rajani Dubey noted that the respondent authority has considered the respondent No.4 as selected candidate at serial No.2 and thus issued the impugned appointment order, however, it will not be amiss to state here that the respondent No.4 has never find his name in the select list  and thus, consideration of the respondent authority that the respondent No.4 is at serial No.2 of the select list for passing the impugned appointment order to the respondent No.4. Hence being aggrieved by the same, petitioner begin the faithful citizen of India and concerned about the illegality committed in making appointment in the public post by the respondent authorities, who has no other efficacious alternative remedy available under law, thus petitioner seeks to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court to declare the entire action of respondents passing the impugned appointment order is without jurisdiction.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned appointment order in favour of respondent No.4 and was given appointment, which is arbitrary and illegal. He further submits that name of the respondent No.4 does not find place in the merit/select list and thus, the respondent No.4 does not falls within the zone of consideration and inspite of same, the respondent No.4 was given appointment vide impugned order. The respondent authorities have failed to appreciate that the said post against which the respondent No.4 was given appointment was withhold for the Schedule Tribe candidate, but inspite the respondent No.4 applied for the said post as Schedule Caste candidate was given appointment which is arbitrary and illegal. He also submits that the respondent No.4 was resident and   member of Schedule Caste in the State of Maharashtra, but not a Schedule Caste in the State of Madhya Pradesh and thus considering the respondent No.4 to be a Schedule Caste in the State of Madhya Pradesh for giving appointment vide impugned order. 

He also submits that the respondent No.4 was considered as a selected candidate at serial No.2, however, a perusal of the select list nowhere finds the name of respondent No.4, which clearly demonstrates that to give undue advantage to the respondent No.4, the respondent authorities have acted with malafide. He also submits that the respondent authorities are under duty to enquire the same and take appropriate action against the respondent No.4, but inspite of representation the respondent authorities are not taking any action.

“It would also be appropriate for this Court for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. The Courts should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. It is also well-settled that the Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation”, the Court observed.

The Court was  not satisfied that this is a genuine petition filed in public interest so as to invoke the jurisdiction in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution.