1 2026:CGHC:13632 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2675 of 2026 1 - Manjulata Sharma W/o Shri Ajay Sharma Aged About 55 Years Presently Working As Assistant Grade-Ii, Office Of District Collector Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Under Secretary Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Apurva Nigam, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 23/03/2026. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the communication made to petitioner on 04.10.2021, whereby petitioner was intimated that as petitioner could not secure the minimum marks and passed the first BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 paper, therefore, she is not eligible for her selection to the post of Naib Tahsildar from clerical grade. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that respondents/State vide advertisement dated 04.03.2014 has invited application for filling up of 57 posts of Naib Tahsildar to be filled up through limited examination from in service candidates of Revenue Department. Petitioner also participated in the said selection process by submitting application. Upon declaration of result of written examination, petitioner was declared to be unsuccessful candidate as she could not able to secure 50% marks in Paper- I. Upon becoming unsuccessful, petitioner filed writ petition bearing WPS No.3951 of 2018 which came up for consideration on 28.05.2018. Court upon considering that one of the grounds raised by petitioner that, one Ku. Nita (scheduled tribe category candidate) who also did not procure the minimum cutoff marks prescribed has been selected and given promotion on the post of Naib Tahsildar have directed petitioner to submit detailed representation and department was directed to consider the representation, keeping in mind that such other candidates were given benefit of relaxation of marks over and above the circular so existing. When petitioner was not given appointment, she filed contempt petition bearing Cont. Case No. 278 of 2019, which was disposed of taking into consideration submission made by counsel for the respondent therein that they would reconsider the claim of petitioner, contempt petition was disposed of. Petitioner thereafter had again filed contempt petition bearing Cont. No.551 of 2021 and considering the note-sheets produced by the counsel for State, showing that proceedings is pending at the end of minister, 3 granted time for its compliance. When case came up for hearing on 03.02.2026, submission was made on behalf of learned counsel for petitioner that the order passed in writ petition has been duly complied with accordingly, the contempt petition was closed and thereafter, this writ petition was filed seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure P- 1). 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for the post of Naib Tahsildar by providing grace marks as provided to Smt. Neeta with all consequential benefits. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner is also entitled for relaxation as granted to one Ku. Neeta in minimum qualifying marks in Paper-I and Paper-II. It is further contention of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner has procured 43.158 marks in Paper-I and 54.082 marks in Paper-II. Petitioner was declared unsuccessful as she could not procure 50 marks in each paper. As respondents have granted relaxation in the qualifying marks to one Ku. Neeta, therefore, petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit, which was considered by the High Court in WP(S). 3951 of 2018 and accordingly, directions was issued to petitioner to submit representation and further direction was issued to respondents-therein to consider the representation in view of the fact that other candidate 4 was given benefit of relaxation and to grant relaxation to petitioner and give her appointment on the post of Naib Tahsildar. 4. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that after passing of order in the writ petition, representation submitted by petitioner was considered and it was rejected vide order dated 04.10.2021 and this writ petition has been filed belatedly. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. It is not in dispute that in the examination conducted pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.03.2014, minimum qualifying marks fixed for unreserved category candidate was 50 marks in each of papers. Petitioner could not secure 50 marks in paper-I. According to norms fixed, requirement is to secure 50 or more marks in each of the two papers. 7. Only ground raised by petitioner in this writ petition is that one Ku. Neeta who participated as scheduled tribe candidate, for whom minimum qualifying marks was 45, however, she could not procure 45 marks in each of the two papers i.e. Paper-I and Paper-II and according to petitioner, she secured 40 marks in Paper-I and 45.918 in Paper-II. 8. After getting knowledge about the unsuccessful candidate, Ku. Neeta has also been selected, proceedings was drawn after following due process, and after approval from the competent authority, her selection/appointment was cancelled vide order dated 30.10.2018 as 5 is reflecting from letter dated 31.10.2018 (Annexure P-8) addressed to petitioner. 9. Cancellation of appointment of Ku. Neeta is not disputed by learned counsel for petitioner before this Court during the course of hearing. In the aforementioned facts of the case, when the appointment of a candidate, who has been erroneously selected and appointed, has been cancelled by respondents authorities, the very ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner in this writ petition for her selection and appointment on the post of Naib Tahsildar itself goes. Even otherwise negative parity cannot be claimed. 10. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram