1 CGHC010032962017 2026:CGHC:34695 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6694 of 2017  Smt. Monika Bhensle W/o Shri Neeraj Sarwa, Aged About 28 Years Working As A Siksha Karmi Grade- I I I, Posted Assistant Science Teacher, Posted At Kanshiram Sharma Govt. H.S. School, Bhanpuri, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur Through Secretary Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Vyapam Building, North Block, Sector 19, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate For State/Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Shubhankar Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.08 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to also call the petitioner for verification of her mark sheet and provided posting on the post of Lecturer Panchayat, 2017. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.08.07 17:16:41 +0530 2 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition;” 2. Facts in brief are that the respondent No. 1 invited applications to fill-up the post of Lecturer in various streams in the year 2017. The petitioner applied for post of Lecturer (Science) for Raipur District. The examination was scheduled on 27 August, 2017. The petitioner participated in the examination and she was declared eligible, but she was not invited for document verification. The petitioner approached the respondent authorities and came to know that there was no advertisement for post of Lecturer (Science) for Raipur District, and therefore, no appointment can be given to the petitioner. 3. Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate appearing for the petitioner would argue that as the petitioner secured position in the merit list, the respondent authorities should have considered her name for any other district or any other stream. He would submit that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to accommodate the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that as there was no vacancy for Lecturer (Science) stream in Raipur District, therefore, candidature of the petitioner could not be considered. They would submit that the petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Perusal of the advertisement would make it clear that there was no vacancy for Lecturer (Science) stream in the District Raipur, whereas, the petitioner had applied for same district and in absence of available post, she was not 3 invited for document verification as the petitioner herself committed mistake, therefore, she cannot take benefit of her own mistake. As there was no vacancy, the respondent authorities rightly refused to invite the petitioner for document verification. 7. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant