1 2025:CGHC:10418 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3879 of 2018  Anuradha Singh D/o D/o Mr. Sukhendra Pratap Singh, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Nawapara, Judwani, Post Lakhanpur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director, Directorate Of Medical Education D. K. S. Bhavan Compound, Old Nurses Hostel, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector, Surguja, (Ambikapur) District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4. Principal, Government Nursing College, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5. Priyanka Shukla, W/o W/o Diwakar Shukla, Warden Through Principal, Government Nursing College, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Rakshita Mishra, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent No. 5 : Ms. Zainab Vanak, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03. 03.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.03.05 10:07:26 +0530 2 “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to selection and appointment to the post of Warden (Female) as initiated vide advertisement dated 18.07.2017. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire selection to the post of Warden (Female) conducted pursuant to advertisement dated 18.07.2017 and consequent appointment of respondent No.5. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction to the Respondents directing them to cancel the entire recruitment process of Warden (Female) of Government Nursing Women College. Ambikapur. 10.4 That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent Noi.1 to take action against the respondent No.4 as recommended by the inquiry committee in its report dated 03.04.2018. 10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to cancel the appointment of respondent No.5 to the post of Warden (Female). 10.6 Any other relief(s), direction(s), which Hon'ble the Court deems fit, and proper, in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, respondent No. 5 and other eligible candidates participated in the selection process for the post of Warden (Female) at Government Nursing College, Ambikapur. She would further submit that there was only one post and it was for open category. She would also submit that the petitioner and other candidates participated in the written examination. The petitioner secured 50 marks out of 100, whereas respondent No. 5 secured 90 marks. She would contend that a complaint was made by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Collector and Naib Tahsildar, Ambikaspur and a report was submitted on 03.04.2018 before the Collector Surguja. She would further contend that the allegations made by the petitioner were 3 found correct. She would also submit that there is a specific finding that the question paper was leaked by respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 5 was permitted to carry question paper and answer-sheet along with her. She would also contend that a representation was made by the petitioner before the Collector, Surguja on 17.04.2018 for appropriate action, but till date, no decision has been taken. She further states that a suitable direction may be issued to respondent No. 3 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner dated 17.04.2018 in an objective manner within a stipulated time. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Zainab Vanak, counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 would oppose. She would submit that the petitioner participated in the selection process and when she could not qualify, she filed this petition making frivolous allegations. She would further submit that respondent No. 5 was meritorious as she had secured 90 marks out of 100 in the written examination, whereas the petitioner had secured 50 marks out of 100. She would also submit that respondent No. 5 was appointed against the advertised post and she is discharging her duty. She would contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate appearing for the State would also oppose the submissions made by Ms. Mishra. He would submit that the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the selection process after participating in the examination. He would further submit that though an enquiry was conducted, but no action has been taken against respondent No. 5. He would also submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Admittedly, one post of Warden (Female) at Government Nursing College, 4 Ambikapur was advertised on 18.07.2017. The petitioner secured 50 marks out of 100, whereas, respondent No. 5 secured 90 marks out of 100. An appointment order was issued to respondent no. 5 and she joined the services in the year 2017. A complaint was made by the petitioner before the respondent authorities and an enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Collector and Naib Tahsildar, Ambikapur, wherein, it was found that respondent No. 4 leaked the question paper and the same was provided to respondent No. 5. A report was placed before the Collector on 03.04.2018 after the appointment of respondent No. 5. The petitioner has made a representation before respondent No. 3 on 17.04.2018 but the same has not been decided yet. 7. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, without making any observation on the merits of the case, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 to decide the pending representation made by the petitioner dated 17.04.2018 in an objective manner, within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant