Ramesh Sinha, CJ
1. WA No. 395/2023 and WA No. 397/2023 arises out of judgment dated 27.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2485/2015 and other connected matters. Since both these appeals arise out of a common order, they are being considered and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the appellants in both the appeals are that are that an advertisement dated 10.03.2015 was issued by Chief Executive Officer, (for short, the CEO) Zila Panchayat Korea, inviting applications for appointment on the post of Panchayat Secretary in Zila Panchayat Korea, District Korea. The appellants participated in the said proceedings and they were selected on the post of Panchayat Secretary. The appellants were appointed on 22.06.2015. They were earlier appointed as Rojgar Sahayak and after their selection as a Panchayat Secretary, they resigned from the post of Rojgar Sahayak and had joined on the post of Panchayat Secretary on 06.07.2015, 03.07.2015 and 03.07.2015. All the appellants were working on the post of Rojgar Sahayak for the last more than 8 years. The appellants are holding the requisite qualifications for appointment on the post of Rojgar Sahayak, as per the advertisement issued on 10.03.2015.
3. On 10.03.2015, the advertisement was issued by the CEO, Zila Panchayat, Korea, inviting applications for appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Sachiv/Secretary. The advertisement was issued for filling up 47 posts of Gram Panchayat Sachiv. 11 Posts were reserved for unreserved category, 3 posts were reserved for Schedule Tribe, 26 posts were reserved for Schedule Caste and 7 posts were reserved for other backward class. The appellant No.1 belongs to schedule caste, appellant No.2 belongs to OBC category and appellant No. 3 belongs to the Scheduled Tribe categorry, whereas the writ petitioner was the candidate of unreserved category. The mode of selection was based upon the merit list. Clause No. 7 of the advertisement deals with the award of marks which is as under:
“i. For Higher Secondary :65% of marks of marks obtained
ii. For Graduation: Additional 3 marks
iii. For Post Graduation: Additional 5 marks
iv For MBA: Additional 10 marks
v. For experience of working as Gram Panchayat Sachiv or Rojgar Sahayak-/other equivalent posts for one year: 5 marks for 2 years: 7 marks for 3 years: 10 marks.
vi. For PGDCA/DCA: Additional 10 marks.”
4. A corrigendum was issued on 16.04.2015 and in the said corrigendum the criteria for award of marks were changed as under:
“i. For Higher secondary: 65% of marks of marks obtained.
ii. For Higher education : 3 marks for Graduation : 5 marks for Post Graduation
iii. Experience of working on post of Rojgar Sahayak:
Maximum 30 marks.”
5. As per the advertisement, clause No. 16 the guidelines and rules issued from time to time would be made applicable and therefore, the Zila Panchayat Korea has issued the corrigendum and there was no irregularity in the corrigendum issued on 14.05.2015. The writ petitioner- Asif Raza filed a writ petition (WPS No. 2485/2015) questioning the corrigendum dated 14.05.2015 (Annexure A/6) issued by CEO, Zila Panchayat Korea and praying for a direction to the respondent authorities conclude the selection process for appointment on the post of Panchayat Secretary in accordance with the advertisement dated 10.03.2015.
6. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe as well as Ms. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respective appellants submit that from bare perusal of the relief claimed in the writ petition, it appears that appointment of the appellants were not challenged by the writ petitioner. Admittedly, the appointment orders of the appellants were issued on 22.06.2015 and all the appellants have joined the posts and rights have been accrued in their favor. However, the learned Single Judge completely failed to appreciate the directions issued on 16.04.2015 and the fact that the writ petitioner also participated in the selection process with open eyes and subsequently he has challenged the corrigendum dated 14.05.2015. The learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate that, the writ petitioner-Asif Raza has not secured marks higher than the appellants herein and even if the 10 marks of MBA and 10 marks of PGDCA would have been awarded to the writ petitioner, he would have been selected. The writ petitioner had not claimed any relief for himself but had challenged the entire selection process, even without impleading the remaining 41 selected Gram Panchayat Sachiv. The writ petitioner participated in the selection process as a candidate of unreserved category, but the effect of the judgment would be cancellation of the entire selection process and even without impleading the selected candidates.
7. The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment dated 27.06.2023 allowed the writ petition only on the ground that, the selection has to be made on the basis of the norms and the rules existing on the date when the process of selection begins. It has been further observed that the rule of the game was subsequently changed, which is not permissible. The Hon'ble Single Bench has set aside the corrigendum dated 14.05.2015 and following direction was issued:
"22. The respondents are directed that selection process for subject posts be completed as per advertisement dated 10.3.2015 (Annexure P-4 in WPS No. 2485/2015 issued by CEO, Jila Panchayat, Korea), advertisement dated 5.12.2014 (Annexure P-1 in WPS No. 1859/2015 issued by CEO, Jila Panchayat, Dhamtari) and advertisement dated 5-12-2014 (Annexure P-2 in WPS 5685/2017 issued by CEO, Jila Panchayat, Dhamtari), if the qualification sought for in the advertisement is in accordance with the guidelines Annexure R-2/1 dated 29.8.2008 issued by the Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Raipur."
8. Ms. Singhvi further submits that from bare perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it transpires that the entire selection process has been set-aside and now the Zila Panchayat has been directed to complete the selection process as per the advertisement dated 10.03.2015. In the entire petition, the writ petitioner has neither alleged any mala fides or violation of the statutory rules, even the justification assigned by the State and Zila Panchayat have not been considered. If the criteria for award of mark has been changed and there are justifiable reasons for the same than the entire selection process cannot be quashed, without examining the reasons assigned by the election committee in absence of any specific challenge to the selection process and without impleading all the selected candidates, the learned has virtually set-aside the entire selection process. Not only the 6 appellants, but all the selected 41 candidates would be affected by the said judgment . The directions issued by the Hon'ble Court virtually amounts to setting aside of the entire selection process, even without examining the grounds raised in the petition. The appellants were also selected in the said selection process, but they were not impleaded as party respondent and they are affected by the impugned order. If the fresh selection process is initiated and merit list is be prepared on the basis of the first advertisement, the appointment order of the appellants would come to an end. Without challenging the appointment of the appellants, the entire selection process has been quashed. The writ petitioner had not claimed any relief for himself and it appears that the petition was in the nature of Public interest litigation, which is not permissible in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girjesh Shrivastava and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Others {2010 (10) SCC 707, para No. 21}. Learned counsel for the appellants further rely on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Assn. v. State of Gujarat {1994 Supp (2) SCC 591}, Buddhi Nath Chaudhary v. Abahi Kumar {(2001) 3 SCC 328}, Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, {(2013) 11 SCC 309, para No. 18 to 24}, Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, {(2013) 14 SCC 494}, Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu Kashmir, {AIR 2023 SC 2014}.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Sushobhit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 {writ petitioner in WPS No. 2485/2015) would support the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submit that once the game has begun, rules of the game cannot be changed which was done in the instant case. As such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper warranting no interference. It is submitted by Mr. Singh that in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, as the writ petitioner belonged to unreserved category, he had impleaded all the selected candidates under the unreserved category as party respondent. Mr. Singh further submits that if the State is ready to consider the candidature of the writ petitioner-Asif Raza, he would have no objection if this Court set asides the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
10. Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that the State is bound by the order of the learned Single Judge and it has to obey the order as has been passed by the learned Single Judge unless modified or quashed by this Hon’ble Court.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
12. The advertisement was issued for filling up of 47 posts Gram Panchayat Sachiv. After selection and appointment of the selected candidates, the writ petitioner-Asif Raza had filed WPS No. 2485/2015 on 06.07.2015. After the appointment order was passed on 22.06.2015, they have joined their respective posts on in the month of June and July, 2015. The writ petition came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge on 27.06.2023. After passing of the said order, the appellants herein filed writ appeals as aforesaid on 04.09.2023 challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge. A co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 29.09.2023 stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 26.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2485/2015 and other connected matters and as such, the appellants herein are enjoying the interim relief till date and as stated by the learned counsel for the appellants, they are continuing in their services.
13. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra), observed as under:
“12.1. Thus, the inexorable conclusion that can be drawn is that it is not within the domain of the Courts, exercising the power of judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and is within the expert domain of a Selection Committee, subject of course to a caveat that if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules, only in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the Courts intervene.
Thus, Courts while exercising the power of judicial review cannot step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or assume an appellate role to examine whether the marks awarded by the Selection Committee in the viva-voce are excessive and not corresponding to their performance in such test. The assessment and evaluation of the performance of candidates appearing before the Selection Committee/ Interview Board should be best left to the members of the committee. In light of the position that a Court cannot sit in appeal against the decision taken pursuant to a reasonably sound selection process, the following grounds raised by the writ petitioners, which are based on an attack of subjective criteria employed by the selection board/interview panel in assessing the suitability of candidates, namely, (i) that the candidates who had done their post- graduation had been awarded 10 marks and in the viva-voce, such PG candidates had been granted either 18 marks or 20 marks out of 20.
(ii) that although the writ petitioners had performed exceptionally well in the interview, the authorities had acted in an arbitrary manner while carrying out the selection process, would not hold any water.”
14. The appellants had worked on the post of Rojgar Sahayak for more than 9 years and after tendering their resignation from the post, have joined the post of Gram Panchayat Sachiv. Now, they would have even crossed their age of eligibility for a government job. On the strength of the interim order passed by this Court, they have continued in their services from the date of their joining in the month of June/July, 2015 till date. More than 9 years have elapsed, and if the entire selection process is revisited/directed to be completed as per advertisement dated 10.03.2015 if the qualification sought for in the advertisement is in accordance with the guidelines dated 29.08.2008 issued by the Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, as has been ordered by the learned Single Judge, it may have an effect on the selected candidates. Thus, at this stage, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, instead of setting aside the selection and appointment of the appellants / completing the selection process as per advertisement dated 10.03.2015 if the qualification sought for in the advertisement is in accordance with the guidelines dated 29.08.2008 issued by the Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Raipur, as has been directed by the learned Single Judge, it would be appropriate to direct the State Government to consider the candidature of the writ petitoner-Asif Raza (respondent No. 5 herein) for appointment, without disturbing the appointment of those who have already been appointed, joined and are continuing on their respective posts.
15. Accordingly, the order dated 27.06.2023 passed in WPS No. 2485/2015 by the learned Single Judge, so far it relates to revisiting the selection and appointment of 47 Gram Panchayat Sachiv in District Panchayt, Koriya, Baikunthpur, is concerned, the same is set aside and the State/respondents No. 1 to 4 are directed to consider the candidature of the writ petitioner-Asif Raza (respondent No. 5 herein) for grant of appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Sachiv without disturbing the appointment of those who have already been appointed and joined their respective posts.
16. Resultantly, both these appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above.
