ANAMIKA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WP (S) Nos.4501 and 4626 of 2010, involving the common facts and common question of law require consideration and deci- sion by the common order.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 15-5-2009, the petitioners Anamika Pandey (petitioner No.1 in WP (S) No.4501 of 2010) {for short "Anamika") and Su- parna Shrivastava (petitioner in WP (S) No.4626 of 2010) {for short "Suparna"} applied for recruitment on the post of Assistant Profes- sor (Zoology). Ajay Kumar Pandey (petitioner No.2 in WP (S) No.4501 of 2010) {for short "Ajay") applied for recruitment on the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry). Thereafter, they partici- pated in the written examination. The names of Anamika & Su- parna were found place in the list of successful candidates of writ- ten examination at S.Nos.131 & 132, respectively, but they were not called for interview. Thus, these petitions.

(3.) SHRI Siddqui would next submit that no handicapped candi- dates were available and, as such, no call letter was issued for in- terview. If total seats available for unreserved category i.e. 46 are taken into consideration 138 successful candidates in the written examination could have been called for interview. The rank ob- tained by Anamika & Suparna is 131 & 132, respectively within total 138 candidates and, as such, both of them were eligible for being called for interview and their names would have been found place in the select list.