1 2025:CGHC:35665-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 521 of 2025 Aarti Mahobe D/o Late Shri S.L. Mahobe Aged About 39 Years R/o Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, (Petitioner) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director Panchayat Directorate Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat, Dantewada, District - South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 4. Shri Narendra Yadu Lecturer Panchayat ( English) C/o Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Dantewada, District - South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Mahima Chandra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.24 18:04:50 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24 .07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Mahima Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 96 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4974 of 2018 (Ku. Aarti Mahobe vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has filed the writ petition bearing WPS No. 4974 of 2018 before the Hon'ble High Court challenging the impugned order dated 27.12.2017 (Annexure P/1 in the writ petition), passed by the respondent No. 3/Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.), by which the respondent No. 3 has wrongly appointed respondent No. 4, who is a male 3 candidate in reserve post for female. So, appointment order of respondent No. 4 deserves to be quashed and in his place appellant deserves to be appointed and declared that appellant is entitled for pay seniority etc, from the date of appointment of respondent No. 4. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in reservation roster supplied by the respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2 on 20.07.2017, it has been mentioned that 3 seats are (1 seat reserved for female and 2 post for open category) for O.B.C. She also contended that in result of Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur appellant has been shown in female category Rank as 4 (Serial No. 1 is Om prabha Sahu, No.2 is Neha Ali, No.3 is Anisha Begum and Serial no. 4 is of the appellant/petitioner). She would submit that 04 O.B.C. female category, Om Prabha Sahu has been selected and appointed from open category, Neha Ali has been declared as disqualified, and Anisha Begum has not joined her post after appointment, so appellant rank in O.B.C. female candidates as Rank 2, Smt. Om Prabha Sahu has been appointed in open category seat is most suitable for the post. So, appellant deserves appointment as Lecturer Panchayat in English in reserve O.BC. Female category in which Anisha Begum was appointed, but who did not join. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant states that respondent No. 2 should have appointed appellant in that post, but respondent No. 2 has illegally and fraudulently appointed respondent No. 4 a male candidate in her place. He also states that appellant had brought the above illegality to the notice of respondent No. 3 vide application dated 05.04.2018, but no relief has been given to the appellant. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside and also required to be remit back to the learned Single 4 Judge for hearing upon the issue involve in the matter after going through the impugned orders. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. He further submits that the appellant has not placed documents to demonstrate that Neha Ali’s candidature was rejected and Anisha Begum did not join service. He also submits that appellant was at Sl.No. 8 in merit list of OBC category and at Sl. No. 3 in OBC (Female) category, therefore, her candidature was not considered. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 9. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge held that the appellant failed to submit the necessary documents to demonstrate her case. Specifically, the appellant failed to show that respondent No. 4 was appointed against the sole post reserved for the OBC (Female) category. Additionally, the appellant did not provide any documents to prove that Neha Ali's candidature was rejected by the authorities or that Anisha Begum did not join service, which were crucial facts to support her claim. 10. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed 5 any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan