1 2025:CGHC:13504 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5641 of 2018  Ramesh Das S/o Shri Dinbandhu Das Aged About 31 Years Bartunga, Kotani, Chirmiri, Police Station Chirmiri, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector Cum District Election Officer, District Koriya - Baikunthpur Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3. Dy. District Election Officer, District Koriya Baikunthpur Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4. Manoj Kumar Gupta, S/o Jagatnarayan Gupta , Aged About 33 Years R/o Ghadi Chowk, Baikunthpur District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5. Rina Goutam D/o D S Goutam Aged About 30 Years R/o Opposite Of Bada Pipal, Chinddand, Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate For State/ Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, P.L. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Syed Majid Ali Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 21/03/2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following relief(s):- Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.03.21 18:50:13 +0530 2 10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Annexure P-1, the appointment order dated 22-06-2016 along with final selection list and press release dated 09-06- 2016 to the extend of the respondent no. 4. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to entire process of examination and appointment with regard to the advertisement dated 07-04-2015 for the Data Entry Operator. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to decide the pending application /objection / representation of the petitioner. 10.4 Cost of petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.5 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favor of the petitioner in the interest of justice. 2) Facts of the present case are that an advertisement (Annexure P/3) was issued by the Collector Cum District Election Officer, District Koriya – Baikunthpur on 07.04.2015 for appointment to the post of Data Entry Operator in the O/o District Election Commissioner. There were total three posts, out of which two posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribes (ST) and one post was kept open for Unreserved category (UR). Petitioner and respondent No. 4 appeared as UR candiates in the examination. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner along with other candidates participated in the written examination and thereafter, result was declared and list of eligible candidates was published wherein name of petitioner appears at S. No. 3221 and the name of respondent No. 4 appears at S. No. 3227. He contends that though the 3 name of petitioner appears before respondent No. 4, he has not been offered appointed on the said post. He argues that the manner in which respondent No. 4 has been appointed on the said post is arbitrary, mala-fide and contrary to the recruitment rules. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents oppose. They vehemently argue that after examination, a merit list was published wherein name of the respondent No. 4 was at S. No. 1, whereas, the name of the petitioner was in the Wait List. They further argue that respondent No. 4 scored 73.02 marks whereas petitioner secured 68.50 marks, thus, respondent No. 4 was rightly offered appointment being meritorious. They pray that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6) Evidently, the list in which names of petitioner and respondent No. 4 appear at S. Nos. 3221 and 3227 respectively is not a merit list. In the merit list, name of respondent No. 4 appears at S. No. 1 whereas name of petitioner finds place in Wait List. The merit list also indicates that respondent No. 4 secured 73.02 marks whereas petitioner secured 68.50 marks. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya