PANKAJ MIRE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether rules of the game can be changed after commencement of the game, is the question involved in this appeal. The challenge raised by the Appellant is against the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the appointment given to the Appellant was caused to be cancelled for giving appointment to the 2nd Respondent, holding that the same was given to the Appellant contrary to the terms notified in the advertisement.

(2.) The sequence of events shows that an advertisement was issued by the rd Respondent on 26.04.2017 for filling up the post of 'District Coordinator'. It was specifically mentioned in the said advertisement that an aspirant would be permitted to apply to the post only in 'one district' and that the candidature will not be considered if they apply for the post in more than 'one district'. Pursuant to the advertisement, both the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent applied for the post of 'District Coordinator' in Kabirdham. Pursuant to the process of selection, the Appellant was appointed as per Annexure P/2 order dated 06.07.2017 as 'District Coordinator' for the District Kabirdham, whereas the 2nd Respondent came to be listed as the first candidate in the waiting list.

(3.) In the course of further proceedings and enquiry, the 2nd Respondent came to know that the Appellant, apart from applying for the post in the District Kabirdham, had also applied for the post in District Bemetara and District Mungeli as well. By virtue of the course and conduct pursued by the Appellant, his candidature was liable to be cancelled in terms of the advertisement and hence, the 2nd Respondent moved the 3rd Respondent. On evaluating the circumstances, it was noted by the 3rd Respondent that the appointment given to the Appellant was liable to be cancelled. However, the proceedings took a different turn, whereby the appointment given to the Appellant on 06.07.2017 as per Annexure P/2 came to be sustained, which made the 2nd Respondent to challenge the same by filing Writ Petition (S) No. 8066 of 2018. The impugned order was sought to be justified from the part of the Respondents contending that 3rd Respondent had issued an order of 'clarification' on 19.07.2017, whereby it was stated that in the case of persons who apply for more than 'one district', their candidature shall be considered only for 'one district'. On the basis of the said clarification, the appointment given to the Appellant in respect of the District Kabirdham was stated as proper and justified.