NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5820 of 2022 1 - Ku. Mankee D/o Ghasiram Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Kasoli, Post Heeranar, Tahsil Geedam, District Dantewada (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development, Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of General Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Commissioner And Chairman Special Junior Employee Selection Board, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 4 - The Collector District Education Officer, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) 5 - The District Education Officer District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) 6 - Minakshee Netam D/o Ghanshyam Netam, R/o H. No. 317, Chuditikra Para, Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02.09.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- REKHA SINGH -2- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/ order, thereby setting-aside/ quashing the impugned select list and appointment & posting order dated 27.07.2022 (Annexure P/1 & P/2) so far it relates to respondent no. 6. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to issue appointment & posting order in favour of petitioner on the post of Peon, in accordance with law. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to an advertisement issued by respondent No.4 for the post of Peon, the petitioner submitted her application form. He would further submit that merit list was published on 02.03.2022 and she was called for documents verification. He would contend that the name of the petitioner was at serial No.207 in the merit list. He would further contend that the petitioner and respondent No.6 secured equal marks but the order of appointment was issued in favour of respondent No.6 on 27.07.2022 vide Annexure P/2. He would also contend that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the name of the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shadangi, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He would submit that admittedly, the petitioner and respondent No.6 secured equal marks. He would further submit that as the age of respondent No.6 was more than the petitioner, therefore, according to the conditions of the advertisement dated 29.10.2021, respondent No.6 was given preference for appointment. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Considering the fact that the date of birth of the petitioner is 20.04.2001 whereas, the date of birth of respondent No.6 is 15.08.2000 and thus, respondent No.6 is older than the petitioner and therefore, she was given preference for appointment according to the condition No.13 of the advertisement dated 29.10.2021. 6. Considering the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order of appointment of respondent No.6. 7. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha