1 CGHC010177332022 2026:CGHC:29332 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3791 of 2022 1 - Rupanjali Sinha, D/o Shri Girdhar Lal Sinha Aged About 27 Years R/o Daisy-381, B-Block Talpuri, Twin City Ruabandha, Civic Center, Durg - 495006, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Secretariat, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rural Engineering Service (R.E.S.) Through Chief Engineer, Vikas Bhavan, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Raipur Through Controller Vyapam Bhavan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 492001, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Ms. Manubha Shankar, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Harshwardhan Parganiha, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri R.C.S. Deo, P.L. For Respondent No.3 : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board NIRMALA RAO 2 13.07.2026 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/ quash the impugned order dated 23.05.2022 (P/1) issued by the respondent Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Raipur. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to issue a fresh appointment order allocating the seats under different categories as per the established principle of law. 10.3 To kindly grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/reliefs in favor of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Draftsman – Class III pursuant to the advertisement published on 8.2.2018. The total number of vacancies advertised was 125, with 30% reservation for women in each category. She would contend that out of the total vacancies, 49 posts were earmarked for unreserved category, of which 12 posts were reserved for women belonging to the unreserved category. She would submit that the petitioner participated in the competitive examination and secured 181st position in the combined merit and 23rd position in the merit list of unreserved female category. It is also argued that respondent No.3 should 3 have appointed the selected female candidates against the quota reserved for their respective categories, whereas more meritorious candidates belonging to other categories were selected against 12 seats reserved for women in unreserved category. She would submit that, by an interim order, a direction was issued to keep one post vacant in the unreserved female category. She would submit that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the name of the petitioner for appointment. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would contend that the merit list has been placed on record alongwith the return. He would contend that the name of the petitioner appears at Sr. No.23 in merit list of unreserved female category and at Sr. No.181 in combined merit list. He would contend that the candidates who were selected had secured higher marks than the petitioner and were placed at Sr. Nos.172 & 178 in the combined merit list. It is also argued by counsel for respondent No.3 that a female candidate belonging to any category is eligible to secure a place in the merit list of the unreserved female category and thus, the claim of the petitioner is misconceived. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the State would support the contention raised by counsel for respondent No.3. 4 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6) Admittedly, the petitioner was placed at Sr. No.181 in the combined merit list and at Sr. No.23 in the merit list of unreserved female category. The female candidates who secured higher marks than the petitioner have already been considered and appointed against 11 posts. Though one post has been kept vacant pursuant to the interim order dated 26.5.2022 but the petitioner did not secure a position within the zone of selection. Therefore, no direction can be issued to the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for selection. It is not a case of the petitioner that she secured a place within the first 12 candidates in the merit list of the unreserved female category. Therefore, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. 7) Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi