^ mCH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR W.P.fS)No. 6995/2011 SB ; HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J PETITIONER Kumari Alka Shukla, daughter of Shri S.K. Shukla, aged about 24 years, resident of E-406 Kailash Vihar, CSEB Colony (West )Darri, Korba (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limrted, The Hitvada Bhawan, Avanti Vjhar, Raipur through its Managing Director. Harnath Reddy, father's name and age not known to the petitioner, presently working as Assistant Manager in C.G. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., and presently posted as District Office, Jagdalpur Abhinay Shukla, father's name and age not knew to the petitioner, presently working as Assistant Manager in C.G. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., and presently posted at District Office, Sarguja. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Shri Vivek Chopda, Advocate for the petitioner. •?' •". ^T ^ A WPS 6995/2011 ORAL ORDER (29.11.2011) SUNILKUMARSINHA.J. Heard on admission. Respondent No.1 issued advertisement dated 25.2.2011 for selection to the post of Assistant Manager (contract basis). In all there were 10 posts. 5 posts were unreserved. One post was reserved for SC; 2 posts were reserved for ST; one post was reserved for OBC and one post for female unreserved category. Shri Chopda submits that though the petitioner secured 73.17 % marks in the examination, but she has been kept in waiting list, whereas, the persons, who have secured less marks than the petitioner, j.e. respondents 2 and 3, have been selected. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 has secured 72.52 % marks and respondent No.3 has secured 70.84 % marks. He also submits that the petitioner as well as respondents 2 and 3 belongs to unreserved category. His submission is that in light of the above mark's configuration of the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, who have been selected against the unreserved category, the concerned authorities have committed error by not selecting the petitioner perhaps on the ground that the petitioner is a woman candidate and one seat was reserved for unreserved woman candidate and one Sparsh Lun Kad, has already been taken against the said post, who has secured 73.75 % marks. His contention is that the action of the respondents is not correct. He submits that in light of the above marks, secured by the petitioner, the petitioner would have also been selected against the unreserved category. Documents filed atong with the writ petition are perused. Admittedly, the petitioner has secured more marks than respondents 2 and 3, who have been selected by the concerned authorities. Shri Chopda submits that looking to the fact that the appointments are being made for a period of one year only, this petition may be disposed m:l:^-T-yf—W- ^ ^. •^ '•••^S^t^-K^'y-^ ? ^..,-.^ \\. '<•,?'" ^' WPS 6995/2011 of, with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the above facts and circumstances of the case and to take a decision within the stipulated period granted by this Court. The prayer appears to be genuine. The writ petition, therefore is disposed of with the direction that if so advised, the petitioner may file a representation along with a copy of this order and the copy of this writ petition before the concerned authorities within a period of 7 days from today and if such a representation is filed, the same shall be disposed of by the concerned authorities within a further period of 10 days from the date of receipt ofthe representation, keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner has secured 73.17 % marks, which is higher than the other candidates, who have been appointed against the general category. With the above observations/directions, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. —— Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^'.r