Bhawna Nigam v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ANR.
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 1942 OF 2012 Pranjal Pathak, aged about 34 years, C/o Shri Vinay Pathak R/o C/o Pranjal Pathak C-62 Agya Nagar Bilaspur (CG).
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher Education Department, DKS Bhwan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG).
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road Raipur (CG).
... Respondent(s) WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 1944 OF 2012 Raj Rekha Shukla, aged about 37 years, W/o Shri Krishna Kumar Shukla R/o Krishna Auto Parts Mission Hospital Road Idgah Chowk Bilaspur (CG).
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher Education Department, DKS Bhwan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG).
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road Raipur (CG).
... Respondent(s) WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 2471 OF 2011 Bhawna Nigam, aged about 35 years, W/o Shri Deepak Nigam, R/o C/o Dr. R.C. Saxena, Vinoba Nagar, Opp. Gayatri Temple, Bilaspur (CG).
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher Education Department, DKS Bhwan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG).
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road Raipur (CG).
... Respondent(s) For Petitioner :
Shri Mateen Siddique, Advocate.
For Respondent-State :
Shri Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent-PSC :
Shri BD Guru and Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocates.
For Intervenor :
Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 01.08.2018.
1.
These three writ petitions have been filed challenging the advertisement and recruitment process initiated for filling up of the
post of Assistant Professor in the Higher Education Department of the State of Chhattisgarh.
2.
The petitioners have been found to be ineligible for the said post or their names could not find place while preparing the select list which led to filing of these petitions.
3.
The substantive challenge made by the petitioners is that, while preparing the list regarding calling the eligible persons for interview, the respondents have violated the ratio of 1:3 required for calling the candidates for interview.
4.
Perusal of records brought forth by the counsel for the Public Service Commission and which has not been disputed by the counsel for the petitioners as well, it reflects that the petitioners herein were candidates for the Subjects Hindi and English. For both the subjects, the record shows that the respondents infact have called the persons for interview following 1:3 ratio. 5.
Record shows that in Hindi Subject, the total posts were 85 and the unreserved seats were 46 under which the petitioners claim was and the total number of candidates called was 140 which shows there was due compliance of the 1:3 ratio.
6.
So far as petitioners in English subject is concerned, the petitioners therein also were claiming appointment under unreserved category. The total number of posts for the unreserved category was 33 and the number of persons called for interview was 99+1 candidate which makes it 100 which means that in the English subject also the ratio of 1:3 has been complied with.
7.
The respondents have shown the documents and has given details and the break-up of the candidates who have been called for interview and on perusal of records it clearly reflects that ratio of 1:3 which was required for calling candidates for the interview has infact been followed in the aforesaid two subjects of Hindi and English to which each of the petitioners were claiming. Thus, since the respondents have complied with the ratio of 1:3 applicable, there does not appear to be any other grounds available for the petitioners to assail the recruitment process.
8.
All the writ petitions accordingly being devoid of merit stand dismissed.
Sd/- (P.Sam Koshy) Judge inder