Rahul Singh vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioners, Rahul Singh and Raksha Rudrakar, participated in the Stenographer and Steno Typist (SGST)-2018 examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Respondent-4). They were placed on a waitlist. The Directorate of Medical Education (Respondent-2) issued a document on November 9, 2021, indicating that three selected candidates (Bhuneshwar Prasad, Pradeep Kumar, and Hem Nandini Sinha) were absent during document verification, implying their posts were vacant. The petitioners allege that no orders were issued to consider candidates from the waitlist for these vacant positions. Aggrieved by the inaction of Respondents-2 and 3 (Directorate of Ayurveda, Yoga, and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy), the petitioners submitted representations on March 29, 2022, and August 12, 2022, which remained undecided. The petitioners sought a direction for their representations to be considered and decided.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing a direction to respondents 2 and 3 (Directorate of Medical Education and Directorate of Ayurveda, Yoga, and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy) to consider and decide the representations submitted by the petitioners. The Court explicitly stated that it had not made any observations on the merits of the petitioners' claims. The decision on the representations is to be made by the respondents based on their own merits and in accordance with the law. The Court directed that the decision should be made at the earliest, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the Court's order. No specific issue regarding the GST Act or its provisions was discussed or decided, as the matter pertained to recruitment and administrative action. The operative direction was to consider and decide the pending representations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a direction to respondents 1 to 3 (State of Chhattisgarh, Directorate of Medical Education, and Directorate of Ayurveda, Yoga, and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy) to consider the appointment of candidates placed on the waitlist for vacant posts arising from the non-joining of selected candidates, specifically in relation to the Stenographer and Steno Typist (SGST)-2018 examination. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that pursuant to the advertisement for SGST-2018, they were placed on the waitlist. Vacancies arose due to the non-joining of selected candidates, as evidenced by a document from the Directorate of Medical Education. Despite their representations, the respondents had failed to consider candidates from the waitlist or decide their representations. They sought a direction for their pending representations to be considered and decided at the earliest. Revenue/State's Argument: The counsel for the State submitted that the petitioners were not pressing the writ petition on merits but were solely seeking a direction for respondents 2 and 3 to decide their pending representations. The State assured that if the representations were not yet decided, they would be decided in accordance with the law. Respondent-4's Argument: The counsel for the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Respondent-4) stated that their role was that of an examiner, and after the examination concluded, a list was published. The appointment process was the responsibility of the State.