Ritesh Kumar Rangari vs. State Govt. Of C.G.

Facts

The petitioner, Ritesh Kumar Rangari, a Chowkidar at Bharat Ratna Late Shri Atal Bihari Bajpai Smriti Chikitsha Mahavidyalaya, Rajnandgaon, challenged a change in his seniority. He was initially placed at serial number 4 in a provisional seniority list dated 05.08.2022. However, in the final seniority list, his name was moved to serial number 13 without affording him an opportunity to be heard. The petitioner submitted representations to the respondent authority on 02.03.2023 and 18.05.2023, which remained pending. The petitioner sought a direction for the respondent authority to consider and decide these pending representations within a stipulated time.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's representations dated 02.03.2023 and 18.05.2023, submitted to respondent No.3, should be considered and decided. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had raised concerns regarding the change in his seniority without an opportunity of hearing, and these representations were pending. The State Counsel did not oppose the petitioner's prayer for a direction to decide these representations. Therefore, the Court directed respondent No.3 to consider and decide the said representations within three months from the date of receipt of the order, in accordance with law and relevant rules. The Court did not delve into the merits of the seniority dispute itself but focused on ensuring the pending representations were addressed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the change in the petitioner's seniority from serial number 4 to serial number 13 in the final seniority list, without providing an opportunity of hearing, is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice? This issue turns on the principles of natural justice and administrative fairness. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the alteration of his position in the seniority list from serial number 4 to 13, without prior notice or a hearing, was unjust and illegal. He relied on the fact that his representations challenging this change were pending before the respondent authority. Revenue/State's arguments: The State Counsel did not oppose the limited prayer made by the petitioner's counsel, implying no specific arguments were advanced against the petitioner's claim for consideration of his representations.