1 2025:CGHC:19878 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5944 of 2018 1 - Smt. Deepti Sahu W/o W/o Shri Vinod Kumar Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o House No. 130/k, Near Sahu Sadan Kalabadi, Ward No. 40, Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Through Its Registrar, Krishak Nagar, Raipur, 492006, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Shri Premshankar Yadav, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Priyank Rathi, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.05.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of records relating to this case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the notification (ANNEXURE P/1) declaring the petitioner as not eligible and allow the petitioner to take part in the examination / interview for the post of subject matter specialist. 10.3 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner submitted her online application form on 21.1.2018 pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.1.2018 for the post of Subject Matter Specialist. He would further submit that the petitioner was required to submit hard-copies of the relevant documents with the respondent authorities by 13.8.2018, however, she was not intimated properly and failed to submit the hard-copies of the documents by 13.8.2018, therefore, her candidature was rejected. He would state that the respondent authorities ought to have afforded sufficient opportunity to submit the relevant documents. He would also submit that all the documents were submitted online, therefore, there was no need to submit physical copies. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that the petitioner was required to submit hard-copies 3 of all the relevant documents with the respondents by 13.8.2018 but she failed to do so, therefore, she was declared ineligible. They would further submit that the recruitment process has already been concluded and the selected candidates have been offered appointment and the petitioner has not arrayed those selected candidates as respondents. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the recruitment process has already been concluded, the candidates have already been selected and appointed, and the petitioner has not impleaded the selected/ appointed candidates as respondents, and further, that the petitioner failed to submit the relevant documents before the respondent authorities therefore, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. 6. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi