- (1.) PETITIONER Ku. Dindeshwari Jagat has participated in the recruitment of Sub Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Public Health Engineering whereas other petitioners have applied in the Department of Public Works. The matter pertains to recruitment of Sub Engineers by the Department of Public Works, Department of Water Resources, Department of Public Health Engineering, Chhattisgarh Housing Board and Chhattisgarh Police Housing Board in a common recruitment examination. Initially, different advertisements were issued by all the departments, but a common examination was conducted by the Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (VYAPAM) and the result of the examination was declared on 5.2.2013. After declaration of the result, all the successful candidates including the petitioners were required to participate in the joint counseling for which they were required to submit a document indicating their preference for appointment in a particular department. Based on the preference, Ku. Dindeshwari Jagat applied for Public Health Engineering Department whereas other petitioners applied for Public Works Department. In course of counseling, their candidature has been refused on the ground that on the last date of submission of application form i.e. 21.12.2012, they have not cleared the qualifying examination.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners would submit that one Miss Kranti Khandekar was issued mark sheet of qualifying examination on 5th March, 2013 whereas petitioner Ku. Poornima Singh was issued mark sheet on 19.2.2013, yet Miss Khandekar has been appointed in the Chhattisgarh Housing Board whereas Poornima Singh has been refused appointment. They would further submit that similarly Renuka Patil, Rajendra Prasad Singh and Lalita Khunte have been appointed in the Department of Water Resources even though they have also been issued mark sheet in the month of March, 2013. They would thus submit that the petitioners have been discriminated in the matter of appointment offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. They have also relied on additional document (Annexure -D/1) filed in WP(S) No.1790/2013 wherein Department of Public Works has already issued a communication for reconsideration of the cases of the petitioners. Learned State counsel would submit that in case cut off date is not mentioned in the advertisement, the last date of submission of application form is the relevant date for acquiring eligibility qualification. Therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. He would also submit that the document Annexure -D/1 is a communication on the basis of assurance made by the Hon'ble Minister which cannot be treated as order of the State Government.
(3.) BEFORE proceeding to deal with the issue based on the obtaining facts, this Court would remind itself the principles enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its landmark judgments.;