Suneeta Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Aggrieved of the merit list published by the respondents for the selection to the post of Medical Lab Technologist arising out of advertisement dated

13.08.2020, the present writ petition has been filed.

From the pleadings of the writ petition it appears that initially merit list was published where the name of the petitioner stood at serial No.7 in the

OBC category and the name of respondent No.4 stood in the unreserved category at serial No.24. In all, there were 50 posts advertised. 28 of the

said posts were kept for unreserved category of which 8 posts were reserved for unreserved female category. In addition, there were 7 posts

reserved for candidate belonging to OBC category of which 2 posts stood reserved for OBC female category.

Admittedly from the pleadings it appears that the respondent No.4 has scored more marks than the petitioner and such she was more meritorious.

She also happens to be belonging to OBC category.

After the merit list was initially published, one Smt. Bhawna Sahu had filed a writ petition being WPS No.2321 of 2021. This court vide interim

order dated 13.04.2021 directed the respondents to keep one post of Medical Lab Technologist in the category to which Smt. Bhawna Sahu belonged

to be kept vacant till the next date of hearing. The said writ petition is still pending and the interim order is still in operation. Given the said interim

order of this court, the respondents has published the revised merit list. They kept one post in the unreserved category vacant and as a consequence of

keeping one post vacant, the merit list had to be revised and the respondent No.4 who earlier was shown as selected candidate from the unreserved

female category was brought down against the OBC Female category and the petitioner herein has been brought down as waiting list No.1 candidate

amongst the OBC Female category and waiting list No.12 under the unreserved category.

The contention of the petitioner seems to be that since they have kept one post in the unreserved category vacant, they ought to have kept the

respondent No.4 out in the waiting list and should have granted appointment to the petitioner subject to outcome of the writ petition which was filed by

Smt. Bhawna Sahu.

This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted for the reason that admittedly the respondent No.4 is more meritorious than the petitioner. The

respondent No.4 also undoubtedly falls within OBC category. Therefore, the moment one post from unreserved category was kept vacant by virtue of

interim order passed by this court in Bhawna Sahu's case, the name of respondent No.4 who till now was under reserved category by virtue of her

merit, she had to be brought down and has been accommodated against the OBC Female quota by virtue of her merit and the petitioner happens to be

next meritorious in the OBC female category and that is the reason the petitioner has been brought down as waiting list No.1 candidate in the OBC

female category.

This action on the part of the respondents cannot be said to be either arbitrary or malafide because of the merit position of respondent No.4 who

has admittedly scored much better than the petitioner. In the event of writ petition of Bhawna Sahu getting dismissed, as a consequence the petitioner

would have to be considered to be accommodated against one post which has been kept vacant and the merit list would have to be revised again and it

appears that admittedly the respondent No.4 who has now been accommodated against OBC Female would again go back in the merit list as an

unreserved candidate by virtue of her merit and the petitioner would have to be accommodated being the waiting list No.1 candidate from among the

OBC female category. The claim of the petitioner therefore would all depend upon the outcome of WPS No.2321 of 2021 i.e. in case of Bhawna

Sahu. In the event if for some reason the writ petition of Bhwana Sahu gets allowed even then the appointment of the said petitioner would also be

subject to the comparison of merits of the candidates who have scored more than Bhawna Sahu and until and unless the petitioner scores more than

Bhawna Sahu, the petitioner would not be in a position of claiming appointment as a matter of right. Hence the entire claim as stated above would all

depend upon the outcome of WPS No.2321 of 2021.

Accordingly, keeping the claim of the petitioner open subject to the outcome of WPS No.2321 of 2021 in Bhawna Sahu's case, the present writ

petition at this juncture stands disposed of.