NIRMALA CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide advertisement dated 20.4.2005 (Annexure P-2) 277 posts of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III were advertised out of which 36 posts were kept reserved for women (unreserved) and 12 for women (OBC) category, pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioner had applied for the said post against women (OBC) category. After verification of the documents interview of the can-didates was conducted and vide Annexure P-8 merit list for women (unreserved) category was prepared in which name of the petitioner was at S. No. 1 as she had scored the highest i.e. 56.55 marks. A separate list was prepared for the women (OBC) candidates in which the candidate who is at S. No. 1 is said to have scored 53.05 marks i.e. less than the petitioner. Vide order dated 17.6.2005 (Annexure P-3) the petitioner was appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade - III.

(2.) Entire selection list of Shiksha Karmi Grade - III was cancelled by the Collector on 13.7.2005 vide Annexure P-4. However, the said order passed by the Collector was set aside by this Court in WP (S) No. 3399/2005 and thus the petitioner still continues in service along with other candidates.

(3.) On 18.11.2011 the petitioner was asked to appear before the competent authority for verification of the documents and accordingly she appeared thereon 24.11.2011. After being satisfied with the documents submitted by the petitioner on 22.3.2012, she was informed about her selection on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade - III against the women (unreserved) category but as she had appeared in the examination against the women (OBC) category she was not entitled to be appointed on the said post. Reply was submitted by the petitioner stating that as her appointment was made strictly on the basis of merit, there was no illegality in the same. Vide order dated 13.4.2012 (Annexure P-1) services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground that she was appointed against the seat reserved for women (unreserved) category whereas she was the candidate of the category of women (OBC) and therefore her appointment was not in accordance with law. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition.