Anuradha Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 3446 OF 2018 • Anuradha Singh, D/o Shri Sukhendra Pratap Singh, aged about 23 years, R/o Village Navapara (Judwani), Post Lakhanpur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1.
State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Medical Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2.
Director, Medical Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Premises, Old Nurses Hostel, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3.
Principal, Government Nursing College, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner :
Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate.
For Respondents :
Mr. Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 01/05/2018 1.
Grievance of the Petitioner in the instant case is that the Respondents contrary to clause of the advertisement have decided to proceed with the recruitment process for conducting a written examination. 2.
According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner since the number of candidates applied for the post were less than 20, that is, 9 in the instant case, the Respondents were not supposed to conduct a written examination and they were only supposed to prepare a merit list in accordance with the educational qualification and the credentials of the candidates.
3.
This contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is difficult to be accepted in the light of the sub-clauses 5, 6 8 of clause 4 of the advertisement which pertain to selection procedure. It has been specifically held that in the event of the applicants being excessive, the Respondents would have liberty to call for a written examination of the candidates at the ratio of 1:20 according to the merits to be prepared on the basis of the credentials of the candidates. The advertisement does not in any manner
reflects that in the event if the number of candidates applying for is less than 20, there would not be any requirement for holding the written examination.
4.
For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find it to be a strong case calling for any interference. The writ petition accordingly being devoid of merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/ Judge