1 2026:CGHC:16318 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5150 of 2021 1 - Nivedita W/o Shri Abhinav Awasthi Aged About 27 Years R/o Tikrapara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Health And Family Welfare Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Dean Government Medical College, Ambikapur Surguja Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09.04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to set aside the Corrigendum/order dated 15.04.2021 issued by the office of respondent no. 3 (ANNEXURE P-1) 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be -2- pleased to issue writ/order/direction towards the respondent no. 3 as to allow to resume the services of petitioner in view of the appointment order dated 10-04-2021 (Annexure P-4) w.e.f. 15-04-2021 with all consequential benefits. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate. 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 2. The facts in brief are that an advertisement was issued on 15.09.2017 to fill up the post of Staff Nurse for Ambikapur, District Sarguja region. There were a total of 166 posts available with the department. 44 posts were kept for unreserved category. The petitioner submitted her application as a candidate of unreserved category. She participated in the recruitment process and she was selected. Subsequently, her name was deleted from the select list on the ground that in the list of selected candidates, her name was wrongly shown against the candidate of the Scheduled Tribe Category. 3. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was meritorious and her name was present in the preliminary select list at Serial No.74 as she secured 61 marks. He would further submit that initially, her name was at serial No.41 in the list dated 10.04.2021 but due to mistake, her name was shown as candidate of Scheduled Tribe Category. He would contend that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner as she had submitted her application form as a candidate of unreserved category. It is argued that the respondent authorities failed to assign sufficient reasons while deleting name 3 of the petitioner from the select list. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents would oppose submissions. He would submit that there were a total of 44 posts kept for unreserved category, whereas, in the merit list, name of the petitioner appeared at 74. He would further submit that in the order dated 10.04.2021 due to mistake, name of the petitioner was shown as a candidate of Scheduled Tribe Category and subsequently, it was rectified. He would contend that the petitioner was not in the merit list to claim appointment against available 44 vacancies of unreserved category. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. It is not in dispute that in the merit list, position of the petitioner was at serial No.74. In the order dated 10.04.2021, due to mistake, name of the petitioner was shown as a candidate of Scheduled Tribe Category. It is true that the respondent authorities failed to communicate the reasons for deletion of the name of the petitioner from select list. The respondents were under an obligation to communicate to the petitioner sufficient reasons while taking any action against her or passing any order adverse to her interest. It is also true that there were only 44 posts available for unreserved category and position of the petitioner in the merit list of unreserved category was at serial No.74 and thus, she was not competent to be appointed against the post available for -4- unreserved category. There was some mistake on the part of the State, therefore, the petitioner is permitted to make a detailed representation before the respondent authorities and the competent authority is directed to decide the representation so made by the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha