Sangeeta Dwivedi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1881 of 2021 • Sangeeta Dwivedi D/o Ugrasen Dwivedi, Aged About 32 Years R/o Civil Line, Kharsiya, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Director Health Services, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3. Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Regional Health And Welfare Training Center, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For the Petitioner :

Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate For the State :

Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy. A. G.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board /03/2021

1. The grievance of the petitioner in present writ petition seems to be the inappropriate marks which have been given to the petitioner in respect of the selection process for the post of staff nurse for Bilaspur division.

2. According to the petitioner the maximum marks from which the

scoring had to be done for was 1800, of which according to the petitioner he has scored 1319. However, in the list published by the respondents, the marks scored by the petitioner has been shown as 1085/1500. This according to the petitioner is erroneous and it ought to had been firstly 1319 and the maximum marks should have been 1800.

3. According to the petitioner, he had already submitted a couple of objections to the respondent authorities online in terms of the requirement of the scheme for the selection and the objections have been made to the respondent No.3 but till date no decision on the said objections have been made.

4. The State counsel at this juncture submits that since the objection of the petitioner is pending consideration before the respondent No.3 and as per the contention of the petitioner the final select list has also not been published. The objection of the petitioner can be ordered to be decided.

5. Given the said submission by the counsel for the parties the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to look into the grievance of the petitioner particularly in respect of the inappropriate marks which have been reflected in the list of eligible and ineligible candidates published by the Department.

6. An appropriate decision on the objection so raised by the petitioner be taken at the earliest preferably within a period of 45 days. Meanwhile, the petitioner in addition would also be entitled for filing a fresh online application in respect of the grievance to the respondents No.2 and 3.

7. It is expected that the respondent shall decide the claim of the petitioner before finalization of the final select list.

8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Parul