1 2025:CGHC:5973 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4974 of 2018 Ku. Aarti Mahobe D/o Late Shri S.L. Mahobe Aged About 39 Years R/o Palari, District Balod Bazar Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Government Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan Police Station Rakhi, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director, Panchayat Directorate, Chhattisgarh Indrawati Bhawan New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Dantewada, South Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4. Shri Narendra Yadu, Lecturer Panchayat, ( English) C/o Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Dantewada South Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For State/ Respondents No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 03/02/2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following relief(s):- 10.1 That Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash appointment order dated 27-12-2017 of respondent No. 4 in Annexure P-3 and in his place Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.02.03 14:11:50 +0530 2 petitioner may kindly be ordered to be treated as appointed in the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) and entitled for pay seniority etc. from the date of appointment of respondent No. 4. 10.2 That cost of litigation and any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit may kindly also be awarded. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to advertisement dated 20.07.2017 for the posts of Lecturer (Panchayat), petitioner, respondent No. 4 and other eligible candidates applied for the post of Lecturer(Panchayat)(English). He further submits that petitioner is a female candidate who belongs to OBC category and only one post was reserved under OBC (Female) category. He contends that one Neha Ali found place at S.No. 3 under OBC category; Anisha Begum found placed at S.No. 4 and ; petitioner found place at S.No. 8. He further contends that candidature of Neha Ali was rejected and Anisha Begum did not join service, therefore, respondent authorities ought to have offered the appointment to petitioner. He argues that against a post reserved for OBC(Female) category, a male candidate (respondent No. 4) has been selected and appointed. He prays for a direction to respondent authorities to consider the claim of petitioner for appointment on the post of Lecturer(Panchayat)(English). 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that petitioner has not placed documents to demonstrate that Neha Ali’s candidature was rejected and Anisha Begum did not join service. He further submits that petitioner was at S.No. 8 in merit list of OBC category and at S. No. 3 in OBC(Female) category, therefore, her candidature was not considered. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3 5) Evidently, petitioner failed to submit necessary documents to demonstrate her case and also failed to demonstrate that respondent No. 4 has been appointed against the only one post reserved for OBC(Female) category. It appears that petitioner also failed to place on record any document to demonstrate that candidature of Neha Ali was rejected by the authorities and Anisha Begum did not join service. 6) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya