1 CGHC010407422022 2026:CGHC:30993 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9365 of 2022 1 - Nidhi D/o Chandra Shekhar Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o Birda, Hardikala, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Deputy Collector Office Of The Collector (Land Record Branch), District Korba (C.G.) 3 - Collector District Korba (C.G.) 4 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Preeti D/o Chandrama R/o House No. Phase 1, Devnandan Nagar, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Munendra Kumar Sharma, Advocate alongwith Shri S.P. Sannat, Advocate. For Respective Respondents : Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A. and Dr. Saurabh Pande, Advocate. NIRMALA RAO 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.07.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the concerned respondents to put the stay in the final selection list published on 29/11/2022. ii. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct to respondents to amend the said selection list or publish a new list and add the name of the petitioner instead of Preeti. Iii. Any appropriate direction or order in favor of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an advertisement was issued to fill-up the post of Patwaris. He would contend that the petitioner, being a member of the Scheduled Tribe category, applied for the said post. He would further submit that respondent No.5 secured the 4th position in the amended merit list under the Scheduled Tribe (Open) category by securing 91.755 marks. He would refer to the order of appointment and submit that respondent No.5 was offered appointment against a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe (Female) Category. He would contend that as respondent No.5 secured a position in the merit list, she should have been considered against the post kept for Scheduled Tribe (Open) category. It is argued that the petitioner submitted a representation before the Collector on 1.12.2022 but till date, no decision has been taken. It is submitted that a direction 3 may be issued to the Collector, Korba to decide the pending representation of the petitioner within a stipulated time. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would contend that the selection process was completed way- back in the year 2023 and appointment orders were also issued in favour of the selected candidates. They would further submit that the petitioner has not impleaded the candidates who secured positions in Scheduled Tribe (Open) category. It is , therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5. Having considered the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner dated 1.12.2022 expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi