Dhanetri Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Sunil Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents.

The present writ appeal has been preferred against an order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1329 of 2019 (Dhanetri Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that the the advertisement was issued on 13.06.2012 for various posts including Female Health Workers, out of which 7 posts were reserved for OBC category candidates. The appelllant as well as other eligible aspirants submitted their applications. Requisite qualifications for the post of Female Health Workers were the Auxiliary Nurse-Midwife Certificate and certificate of registration (training of Female Health Worker). Candidates were to be appointed on the basis of the marks obtained in the examination and the Auxiliary Nurse-Midwife Certificate. The appointment order was issued in favor of the appellant and other eligible candidates by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, District-Gariyaband (C.G.) on 28.12.2012 in which the name of the appellant appears at S. No. 33 against the post reserved for OBC candidates. Though the appointment order was issued, she was not permitted to join, therefore she made various representations before the authorities and finally an order was passed on 22.04.2017 by respondent No. 3 whereby she was denied the appointment.

Challenging the said order dated 22.04.2017, the appellant has filed WPS No. 1329 of 2019 before the learned Single Judge and the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the material documents which was available in the record as per their own reply of the respondents wherein they have admitted that after rectification of the merit list, the name of the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 38 and she secured 73.1 marks whereas subsequent the further post was created and the appointment has been made on the basis of same merit list as shown waiting list, the person who secured less marks than the petitioner as shown at Sr. Nos. 54, 58, 59, 61 and 62 were given the appointment which clearly shows that the respondents have adopted the pick and choose method and wrongly deprived the petitioner from her legitimate right. He further submitted that just after obtaining certain documents vide order darted 30.07.2018, the petitioner has filed the writ petition in the month of February, 2019, hence, there is no delay and latches, therefore, the order of Single Judge is perverse and illegal.

On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly passed the order which warrants no interference.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.

From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has observed that fom a perusal of documents, it appears that an advertisement was issued for various posts including seven posts of female health workers reserved for the female OBC category in which the petitioner along with other eligible candidates was selected. The name of the petitioner is mentioned at S. No. 38 in the merit list which shows that she has secured 73.1 marks. An appointment order was issued on 28.12.2012 in which the name of the petitioner appears at S. No. 33 but she was not permitted to join the services. From a perusal of the merit list, it appears that S. No. 28 Durgesh Nandini Chandrakar scored 77.6 marks, S.No. 31 Yamuna Sahu scored 76.0 marks, S.No. 32 Mogra Verma scored 75.3 marks, S.No. 33 Nirmala Sahu scored 75.2 marks, S.No. 34 Saraswati Sahu scored 74.1 marks, S. No. 36 Pushpa Devi Kumbhkar scored 73.5 marks and S. No. 37 Priyanka Sahu scored 73.4 marks. This merit list shows that the candidates who secured higher marks than the petitioner were offered appointments and on account of this ground, the petitioner was not offered an appointment and eventually was not permitted to join the services. It has been further observed that the appointment orders were issued in the year 2012 and most of the candidates were given appointments but the petitioner kept mum for seven years and thereafter filed the writ petition when the order was issued by respondent No.3 in the year 2017. Even after the issuance of the order in the year 2017, the petitioner waited for two years and thereafter filed this petition. In the opinion of this court, the present petition suffers from delay and latches and the petitioner slept over her right for a considerable period. The candidates were offered appointments in 2012 against posts reserved for the female OBC category but the petitioner has not arrayed any of them as respondents for the reasons best known to her. If the petition is allowed, one of them has to go and such a candidate who may be aggrieved has not been arrayed as respondent, therefore, on this ground also, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).