Ifi^fHf::H^1:l iiii.'B:i •;s Bll HIGH COURT OFCHHAmSQARHAT BIIASHJR 22 v i I \ Writ Pfetitfon No. 5879of2005 Petitioiicr Kii. Ritu NishadD/o ShriS. R.Nishad, agcd aibout 11 years, C^te-Kewat, Resident of'VSSayK and BIiauamgaA, Tahsil ^apiM, Dastrict- Dautewada (C.G.), Minor tluoi^h ber toiber asd aaatural guaadian, Shri S. R. Niahad, Sou ofLate Siua Mai^Iuram, ayed, about 37 years, Rcsident ofMB^p & Bhairamgarii, Talisil -• ^apur, Distnct- Dantewada (C.O.), Versus Respondents 1, ThcUriMmofindia,Thr(nqjh,tte SecBetaiy, Dqpartmcnt ofHiunan ResovttcssDweloiptDeat, New Deffii 2. The JawaharNayodqBB Vid^daya, Barsoor, Distnet- Dantewada (G.O.), Through Tlie Principal, Jawahar Navodaya'Vidyalaya, Barsqor, Dfatrict- Dantewada(C.G.). 3. The Coflector/Presideat, Oommittee fw Special Enteance E»aaDaiaatic»n, Jawahar Navodaya VMyalaya, Baraoor, District- Daatewada (C.G.). SIn^teB®ach:Hon'ble Mr, JusticeS. SLShyfik, CJ. Mr. P. P. Sahu, Advoeate for the petituaaer. OiRALORDBR ( 9A@ecembei, 2005) Tbe foBowing oider (rfffae Court was passed by 8. R. Ilajnk, II.J. The petitfciner betoi^s toO.B.C. categoiy. She applied for admtesioa into fhe second respoxident Vidyalaya. The second tcspotidemt initially toeatmg fhe ^>plicantas belcmgmg to the S.C. c»t^E£»yselected her for admfasion aad in fhat regard, it appears, a coanmuiucatioa was sent to the petitioncr. When the peti.tionerappeatedbefo»ethe s«»nd respondent fiw adaussion, she w^ t(^ fhat Ac waswna^gly't»|sitedi as a candidate bekmya^ toS.C. aiid was Seleerted and sin<«^^^^ 1 23 actualfy betot^s to tfae O.B.C. cat^oiy, shc couU aot be yven adiniisston. tt appears fhat fhereaflciwards, the petitioncT madc a representation to fhe seeond respondent and ber Bepreseatation has been fiwwaxded to the Gential OfBce of fhe Jawahar Nawodtya Vaiyateyas. Wben thc matter stood Qms, ttus writ petitiou was filed for a dmectioin to fhc respoiBlcnts to givc Taec nilmlaslnn- I heaid teamed coulMel for the petitioner. tlaie ficts which ace mit in contBowersy are as foDows. ' e petitbner belangs to O.B.O. categcay. She was wioiigty sdected for adn(issk>n trealung ticr as a candidntc betoagmg to S.C. cateycay. fbe sccond respondcnt whcm realized the nustabe committed by it nefused to aiinrit fhe petttuMier, Siax it is aot the case of fhe petitioaer fhat any candidate beilongmg to O.B.C. categpiy who has secared tess peroeatage of inarirs fhan the petitfoiter h^ been adnutted, fhcre is 110 scope even tp appty Articfc 14 postulates. Uadeaiabfy, flie i%ht to coiaect its wrong decision caanot be denied to thfi second respondeut simpty bccause, fhe secoad respondent tiieating the petidoner asa candidate belongfaig to S.C, mitiatfy' seteeted Iter fbr adnussioii. Thatfactitsetfcannotvestin •fhe petitioner aay enfojroesdble i%h.t to tfac petitioner ID seek adinissMMi mto the second respondcnt edticatkaial mstitotion. No grouiid is made out for eatertanuag fhis writ .petitaon. Ttie writ petition is, fhcrefore, disnnissed. ^s Sd/- Chief Justice iNu-