1 CGHC010374002026 2026:CGHC:41980 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7060 of 2026 Kavita Sahu D/o Badri Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 21 Bahadurganj H. N. 15 Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) versus The Chairman Selection Committee Office Of Principal District And Sessions Judge Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 26/09/2026 1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to declare her eligible to appear in the written examination scheduled to be held on 27.09.2026 for the post of Assistant Grade-III. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the candidature of the petitioner for appearing in the written examination for the aforesaid RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.09.26 15:40:10 +0530 2 post has been rejected only on the ground that the petitioner had failed to annex the domicile certificate along with the application form. He would submit that the petitioner has stated in the present Writ Petition on affidavit that, while submitting her application for recruitment to the aforesaid post, she had annexed the domicile certificate issued in her favour by the competent authority on 16.07.2014. A copy of the said certificate has also been annexed with the petition at page 31. He would further submit that, despite the petitioner having annexed the said certificate along with the application form, her candidature was rejected on the ground that the domicile certificate had not been annexed. According to the petitioner, when objections were invited, she raised an objection specifically stating that the domicile certificate had already been submitted along with the application form. However, even thereafter, in the final list of candidates who had raised objections, the candidature of the petitioner was again rejected on the ground that, upon re-scrutiny of her application form, the domicile certificate was found to have not been annexed. The said fact is evident from Page 10 of the Writ Petition. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner possesses a valid domicile certificate issued by the competent authority in the year 2014 and, therefore, there was no reason for the petitioner not to annex the same along the application form. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, by referring to the reply, would submit that, in the subject recruitment process, approximately 16,000 applications were subjected to scrutiny, out of which 11,800 applicants were found eligible and the remaining 3 4,200 applications were declared ineligible including the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner has not alleged any mala fide on the part of the respondent authorities/recruitment committee and that the procedure prescribed under the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement has been duly followed. He would further submit that there is no illegality or irregularity in rejection of the petitioner's application form and that subsequent submission or production of the domicile certificate cannot cure the defect committed by the petitioner at the time of submission of the application form. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the fact that the petitioner possesses a domicile certificate issued in her favour by the competent authority as far back as on 16.07.2014, a copy whereof has already been annexed with the petition, and further considering that the petitioner had promptly raised an objection against rejection of her candidature, this Court is of the view that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner deserves an opportunity to appear in the written examination. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to issue the admit card in favour of the petitioner for the written examination scheduled to be held on 27.09.2026. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent is directed to communicate this order to the respondent forthwith. 4 7. It is made clear that the order passed in the present petition shall not be treated as a precedent in respect of other candidates whose candidature has been rejected, as the petitioner, in the facts of the present case, appears to have been vigilant, having raised her objection before the authority concerned within time and having approached this Court well before the scheduled date of the examination. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul/Gowri