1 2025:CGHC:6746 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 809 of 2018  Meghna Kaushik D/o Shri Lalit Mohan Kaushik Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kharora Post Bemcha Tahsil,civil And Revenue District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Vipnan Sangh Maryadit, Raipur, Through The Secretary , 880 , Civil Lines Head Office Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Sourabh Bhardwaj S/o B. S. Bhardwaj, R/o Zen 20 , Ganpati Vihar Borsi Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. Aashutosh Kumar S/o Yogeshwar Kumar , R/o Kharra, Kusmi, Bemetara District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5. Ku. Janhavi Jilhare D/o Kishore Jilhare R/o M 90, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Chetan Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Dr. Sourabh Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06. 02.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 & 2 to appoint to appoint the petitioner in the post of Dy. Manager in OBC category. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the appointment of the respondent no. 3 to 5 in the Post of Dy. Manager in the OBC category (respondent no. 3 & 4) and the respondent no. 5 in general category. 10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4 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. An advertisement was issued for the post of Deputy Manager in Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahakari Vipnan Sangh Maryadit on 14.12.2016 for 15 posts. Out of 15 posts, 2 posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes, 5 posts for Scheduled Tribes, and 2 posts for OBC; out of the two posts, one post was reserved for the OBC (female), and 6 posts were kept for the unreserved category. The petitioner is a member of the OBC category. The petitioner and other eligible candidates submitted their application forms; they participated in the written examination, and thereafter, a select list was prepared. The name of the petitioner was at serial No. 6 in the list of the Open (Female) category, whereas her name was at serial No. 2 in the list of OBC (Female) category. In the top 10 selected candidates, she could not secure her position. The merit list has been placed on record by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner should have been appointed on the one post reserved for the OBC (Female). He would further submit that the petitioner was at serial No. 6 in the merit list in the female unreserved category; therefore, the respondent authorities should have considered her candidature. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that there were only three posts reserved for the female category, two posts in the unreserved category, and one post in OBC category. They would further submit that the position of the petitioner was at serial No. 6 in the list of unreserved category, whereas, in the list of OBC (Female) category, her position was at serial No. 2; therefore, her name could not be considered. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner secured her position at serial No. 6 in the list of unreserved (Female) category, whereas, there were only two posts and her position was at serial No. 2 in the list of OBC (Female) category and number of vacancy was one. Further, the petitioner could also not secure position in the merit list, and from a perusal of the documents submitted by the petitioner herself, in top 10 she could not secure her position. 7. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the instant petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). S Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant