PRASHANT DUBEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking for the following reliefs:

(2.) Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioners are that, the respondent/State published advertisement on 4/3/2014 for direct recruitment to the post of Naib-Tahsildar from the departmental candidates, who were belonging to the cadre of Revenue Inspector/Patwari and Clerk. According to the said advertisement, total 29 posts of Naib-Tahsildar were to be filled up from the cadre of clerk out of which 12 posts are unreserved, 4 posts for SC, 9 posts for ST and 4 posts for OBC and out of 28 posts of Naib-Tahsildar were filled up from the cadre of Revenue Inspector/Patwari out of which 12 posts for unreserved, 4 posts for SC, 9 posts for ST and 3 posts for OBC and in the advertisement, there is mode of selection process, in which it has been mentioned that written test examination has been conducted by the Vyapam and it has also been mentioned that two questions paper have conducted through written examination and criteria of selection is necessary to get 50 marks out of 100 marks for the very purpose to get success in the written examination for all categories and all candidates.

(3.) The petitioner came to know that the respondent/State has prepared a list without disclosing five years confidential reports in the list. In the list prepared by the respondent/State, intentionally five years confidential reports have not been shown by the authority concerned because due to non-showing of five years confidential reports the candidates whose confidential reports have already been submitted by the authority concerned under whose supervision the employee have worked, that very reason, some of the employees namely Sanjay Kumar Minz and Karuna Aher whose confidential reports have already been submitted by their official superior after end of financial year that is evident from the record, but said candidates manipulated their confidential reports as per their own choice and that can be possible because Smt. Karuna Aher is working in the establishment Sec. and she not only removed five years confidential reports which have been actually submitted before the authority concerned but she also managed forged and fabricated confidential reports, which she prepared on her own writing and likewise Sanjay Minz whose confidential report of the year 2010 has already been submitted by the officer concerned he got prepared forged confidential reports for the very purpose to get promotion through the departmental promotion committee. In here it is pertinent to note the respondent has not prepared any confidential report of the petitioner though according to the knowledge of the petitioner the respondent never served each year confidential report to anyone of the Patwari though there is specific circulars dtd. 16/12/2010, 8/2/2013 and 7/10/2013.