1 2026:CGHC:5328 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9240 of 2023 1 - Ku. Jyoti Soni D/o Shri Ramkhilavan Soni Aged About 22 Years Residence Of Ward No. 14 Singhouri, Near Hanuman Temple Sonipara P.S. City Kotwali Bemetara District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Law And Legislature Department, Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The District And Session Judge Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The President Selection Committee, Office Of District And Sessions Judge, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Rajesh Yadav S/o Shri Rajkumar Yadav Residence Of Village- Nirtu Post Office Ghutku District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Awadesh Kumar Tiwari S/o Diwakar Tiwari Residence Of Post- Samar Tahsil- Takhatpur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Devendra Rao Bhosle S/o Janardan Rao Bhosle R/o Ward No. 3 Mahamaya Para Ratanpur District Bilaspur (C.G.) VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 7 - Pankaj Singh S/o Suresh Singh R/o Hathnikala Post- Hathnikala Tahsil- Pathariya, District- Mungeli (C.G.) 8 - Pramendra Singh Thakur S/o Murari Singh Thakur R/o Bahtarai Road Atal Awas Kamla Nehru Nagar District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 9 - Chandrashekhar S/o Sukhram Singh R/o Village- Jhaliyapur, Post- Bhalapur District- Mungeli (C.G.) 10 - Smt. Santoshi Verma W/o Late Santosh Kumar Verma R/o Village- Marrakona Post- Bavli P.S. Sargaon Tahsil- Sargaon, District- Mungeli (C.G.) 11 - Smt. Rameshwari W/o Angad Kumar Patle R/o Block No. K- 5, Ward No. 1, Atal Awas Sakri District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 12 - Smt. Suchitra Sutradhar W/o Osit Sutradhar R/o Suryavihar (Patanwar Colony) Face-1, In Front Of Satnam Bhawan, Yadunandan Nagar Tifra, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 13 - Shivshankar S/o Bhojram R/o Markara Post- Jhabdi, P.S. Kasdol District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 14 - Sachin Kumar Dansena S/o Ramcharan Dansena R/o Village- Bade Dumarpali Post- Pamgarh Tahsil- Kharsiya District- Raigarh (C.G.) 15 - Kanhaiya S/o Laxmi Prasad R/o Ward No. 64 Mahamaya Nagar Birkona P.S. Koni Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 16 - Rupesh Kumar S/o Late Shankar Lal R/o Post- Tundari, Tahsil- Bilaigarh District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) 17 - Manish S/o Subhash Chand R/o Indrapuri Nagar Tifra District- 3 Bilaspur (C.G.) 18 - Smt. Neelu Kumari W/o Manoj Kumar Navrang R/o Ward No. 7 Satnami Para Kirkar District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 19 - Sudha Ogare D/o Vyas Ogare R/o Minimata Nagar Near Jaitkham Talapara District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 20 - Surendra Kumar Dhurve S/o Kanhaiya Lal Dhurve R/o Village- Bedapat Post Office- Kargikhurd P.S. Kota District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 21 - Ramchandra Bada S/o Bhagtu Bada R/o Village- Sargaon Post- Kamari P.S. And Tahsil- Shankargarh District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 22 - Gajendra Singh S/o Dhansingh R/o Police Line House No. 10 Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 23 - Smt. Ohama Tirkey W/o Raj Kumar Tirkey R/o Jail Line Rajendra Nagar Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner(s) :- Mr. B.L. Dembra, Advocate For State :- Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondents No. 4 to 15 & 17 to 23 :- Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30.01.2026 4 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble court may be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner from the respondents for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 19.10.2023 (Annexure P-6) issued by the office of respondent no. 2 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the name of petitioner for appointment to the post of peon under the freedom fighter family quota.” 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner, a family member of a freedom fighter and falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Chhattisgarh, applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.06.2023 issued by respondent No. 2 for appointment to the post of Peon under various categories and duly submitted her online application along with attested documents. After verification, she was issued an admit card bearing Roll No. 576 and appeared in the written examination held from 11.10.2023 to 13.10.2023 between 9.00 AM and 10.30 AM. Upon completion of the recruitment process, respondent No. 2 published a provisional selection and waiting list, wherein the petitioner’s name appeared at Serial No. 7 in the waiting list without granting marks under the 5 freedom fighter quota. Objections were invited by respondent No. 3 vide notice dated 16.10.2023, and the petitioner submitted her objection on the same day; however, without deciding the said objection, respondent No. 2 issued appointment orders in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 23. Subsequently, on 20.10.2023, the petitioner’s objection was rejected on the ground that appointments had already been made on the basis of merit. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking grant of extra marks/preference on the ground that she belongs to the family of a freedom fighter. In support of his submission, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the advertisement, wherein under Clause 6, sub-clause (4), it is specifically provided that in the appointment to the post of Peon, preference shall be given to the family members of freedom fighters. It is contended that no such preference or extra advantage has been extended to the petitioner, and as such, the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities and has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that there is no such clause in the advertisement providing for grant of extra marks or any additional advantage. It is contended that Clause 6, sub-clause (4) of the advertisement merely states that preference 6 shall be given to the family members of freedom fighters, and nowhere does it provide for award of extra marks or any special weightage. Therefore, it is submitted that the present petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned State counsel has also supported the contention made by learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3. 6. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 15 and 17 to 23 submits that these respondents were selected through the said advertisement and have also supported the arguments advanced by respondents No. 2 and 3. It is further submitted that they were duly appointed after following due process of law. The grievance raised by the petitioner is misconceived, and therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. From a bare perusal of Clause 6, sub-clause (4) of the advertisement, it is evident that no advantage in respect of marks is required to be conferred upon the petitioner. The only benefit contemplated therein is a preferential right, and not parity or equivalence in marks with other candidates. Since the petitioner has not been equated with the marks of the selected candidates, the claim of preference cannot be sustained. 7 9. Considering the overall submissions advanced by the parties and the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for interference. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha