1 2025:CGHC:48630 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 253 of 2017 1 - Ku. Priyanka Rathia D/o U. B. S. Rathia, Aged About 23 Years R/o I-2, Vishal Nagar, Behind Chhattisgarh Hotel, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Health Engineering, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For respondent No.3 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Trivenishankar Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22.09.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief (s) : “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to -2- direct the respondent authorities to produce the entire record relating the recruitment process initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 15/6/2016 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned advertisement dated 15/6/2016 issued by the respondent No.3 for State Engineering Services Examination 2016 (in respect of the Public Health Engineering (PHE)). iii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to follow the proper reservation roster as provided under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 and consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and the relevant Rules. iv. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. v. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the present case are that an advertisement for various posts including post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) was issued by respondent No.3/Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission on 15.06.2016. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process and after being unsuccessful, she filed this petition challenging the advertisement. 3. Dr. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/CGPSC would submit that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process. The merit list was published on 31.12.2016 but the petitioner has not arrayed the selected candidates in this 3 petition. He would submit that the entire recruitment process has already been concluded and the petitioner has not challenged the subsequent proceedings and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would also endorse the submissions made by Dr.Agrawal. 5. Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there were various irregularities in the advertisement and recruitment process, therefore, the petitioner has challenged it. He would further submit that the reservation roster was not followed properly. He would contend that the posts were not reserved for women candidates according to the Constitutional mandate. He would further contend that the advertisement was in contravention to the provisions of Articles 15 & 16 of the Constitution of India. He would pray to allow this petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. Having considered the fact that the petitioner himself has annexed copy of merit list and list of selected candidates but failed to implead them and has challenged the advertisement -4- after participating in the entire recruitment process, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha