1 2026:CGHC:5677 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1217 of 2026 1 - Sourabh Singh S/o Shri Brishket Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bhainsumudi, Post Office Siund, Janjgir-Champa District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary Ministry Of Power Shram Shakti Bhawan Rafi Marg New Delhi 2 - Chairman And Managing Director Rec Limited, Corporate Office Gurugram District- Haryana 3 - The Executive Director H.R. Department Rec Limited Rec World Headquarters Plot I-4 Near Iffco Metro Station Sector 29 Gurugram Haryana ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Deepali Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Pandey, Dy. Solicitor General along with Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 02 /02/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 04.11.2025 seeking review of non-shortlisting for the post of Officer (Engineering), within a stipulated time frame; 2 10. 2 That, Declare the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's candidature on the basis of "Executive Experience" as illegal and arbitrary, being contrary to the terms of the advertisement; 10.3 That, Direct the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's candidature for the post of Officer (Engineering) in accordance with the advertisement and applicable rules. 10.4 That, Pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had participated in the recruitment proceedings for appointment on the post of Officer (Engineering) pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.10.2024. After conclusion of the proceedings, the petitioner was not shortlisted as selected candidate on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted relevant experience certificate. She contended that the documents which is sought for is not required in terms of the advertisement issued. Petitioner has submitted representation dated 04.11.2025 before the Respondent No. 3 which is pending consideration and therefore, direction be issued to the Respondent No. 3 to take decision on the representation at the earliest within specified time. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that in view of the limited prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner, he is having no objection. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 5. On due consideration on the submission of counsel for the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of grievance raised petitioner, without entering into the merits of the claim of petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Respondent No. 3 to consider and take decision on the representation dated 04.11.2025 in accordance with law 3 expeditiously, preferably within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of the order. 6. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY Date: 2026.02.07 12:30:46 +0530