Somlata Shukla v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 879 of 2021 1.
Somlata Shukla W/o Neeraj Shukla Aged About 45 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar, College Road, Kurud District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2.
Dr. Bhavana Shrivastava D/o Dr. A.K. Shrivastava Aged About 45 Years R/o Saraswatichandra Clinic, Raipur Road Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3.
Dr. Savita Bhoi W/o Nishant Mishra Aged About 35 Years R/o Lig - 180, Housing Board Colony, Near Siyan Sadan Tatibandh, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4.
Dr. Anjuli Mishra W/o Amit Kumar Mishra Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. 64, Near National Convent School, Sundar Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5.
Pooja Sonkar W/o Nand Kishor Sonkar Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 0667, Sonkar Para, Purani Basti, Near Satti Chabutara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgar., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6.
Dr. Abhilasha Sharma W/o Animesh Sharma Aged About 36 Years R/o 54/926, Near Shitala Mandir, Danganiya, Sundar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7.
Dr. Jaya Devi Sahu W/o Himesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Line Para Ward No. 10, Tehsil And Post Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 8.
Dr. Gopa Sharma W/o Anurag Sharma Aged About 46 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar, College Road, Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners
Versus
1.
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2.
Commissioner Higher Education Department, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3.
Secretary Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents
For Petitioners :
Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State :
Mr. Rahul Jha, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.3 :
Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate along with Mr. Aman Saxena, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 15/02/2021 1.
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the examination which was conducted for the posts of Assistant Professor (Home Science). 2.
The challenge to the said examination is on the ground that the examination papers were in English language, whereas the petitioners belong to the Hindi medium. According to the petitioners, when the advertisement was issued on 23.01.2019, the petitioners had raised an objection so far as not being conversant with the English language, the respondents thereafter issued a corrigendum on 23.11.2019 and the syllabus of Home Science was got published in Hindi. According to the petitioners, once they have accepted the objection of the petitioners and the got the advertisement translated for the benefit of the petitioners, they also ought to have got the examination conducted in bilingual method, rather than confining it in English.
3.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submits that in the past also all examinations for filling up of the posts of Assistant Professor (Home Science) have been conducted in English language and it has not been deviated in the present case also. The counsel for the respondents further submits that so far as the corrigendum that was issued on 23.11.2019 is concerned, the
same was for the convenience of the candidates, who were not conversant with the English language enabling them to prepare better for the examination. According to the respondents, since they have not deviated in any manner of conducting of the examination from the practice which has been followed in the past there can be no allegation of any malafides or arbitrariness on the part of the petitioners.
4.
Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, this Court does not find any strong case made out calling for any interference with the examination that was conducted by the respondents, for the reason that it is not the first time that the respondents have conducted the examination only in English language. In the past also the examination for the posts of Assistant Professor (Home Science) have been conducted in English language. This aspect has not been objected/opposed/disputed by the counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. 5.
Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved