1 2025:CGHC:36149 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4034 of 2021  Sarita Sonwani D/o Shri Rajaram Sonwani Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Fulwari, Post Birgaon, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Director Public Education Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. The Chairman/secretary Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Lok Shikshan Sanchanalkaya Recruitment Examination Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ankul Biswas, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Advocate holding the brief of Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record of entire record from the office respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the application/ representation dated 22-01-2021 within stipulated time bound period and also be pleased to SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.28 14:30:37 +0530 2 direct the respondent authorities to adding the name in the document verification list and issued provisional call letter for verification document. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an advertisement was issued by respondent No. 4 for appointment on the posts of Teacher and Assistant Teachers (E & T) cadre on 09.03.2019. He would further submit that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process and secured 49.235 marks in the Science subject and 47.074 marks in the Biology subject. He would also submit that the candidates who secured lesser marks than the petitioner were selected and appointed, but the name of the petitioner has not been considered for the reasons best known to the respondents. He would contend that a representation was made by the petitioner on 22.01.2021 before respondent No. 2, and it has not been decided yet. He would pray for direction to the authority concerned to decide the pending representation. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that the cut-off marks in the Science subject for the post of teacher were 67.092 in Raipur District and 51.33 marks in Bilaspur District, whereas the petitioner secured 49.235 and 47.074 marks; therefore, her name was not considered. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Taking into consideration the facts discussed-above and the prayer made by the petitioner, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the pending representation made by the petitioner dated 22.01.2021 in an objective manner, expeditiously, preferably within a period 3 of 150 days. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant