DEEPTI PARDHI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking following relief (s) :-

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are as under :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 7/8/2014, the respondent No.3- CGPSC issued a modified select list of 10 candidates and waiting list was also declared, wherein the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.3. One selected candidate namely Shivali Pandey, who was at Sl. No.4 in the modified select list dtd. 7/8/2014, relinquished her post, therefore, after relinquishment of the post by said Shivali Pandey, one post of Unreserved Female has fallen vacant and the petitioner, who is at Sl. No.3 under 'UR_W+OBC_W' category in the waiting list dtd. 7/8/2014, is entitled to occupy the vacant post of Unreserved Female. Learned counsel further submits that on 26/2/2015, Additional Director, Directorate, Higher Education, Raipur, has written a letter to the Secretary of Higher Education Department, Raipur, seeking approval from CGPSC so that appointment order may be issued in favour of the candidates who are in waiting list, including the petitioner herein. It was also informed to the authority that the concerned department has accorded administrative approval for appointment of Ajay Pal Singh (UR), Nitin Pandey (UR) and Deepti Pardhi (OBC-F). Ajay Pal Singh (UR) has been granted appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (History) vide order dtd. 15/7/2015, now for the petitioner and one Nitin Pandey, the Secretary, CGPSC, has been requested to accord approval for their appointment from the waiting list. Despite several letters written by the officers of the respondent department, the respondent CGPSC is not approving the selection of the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that it is clear case of discrimination and arbitrariness on the part of the respondent authorities who have issued appointment order in favour of Ajay Pal Singh who was in the same waiting list in which the name of the petitioner was there. Pick and choose formula has been adopted by the respondent authorities while giving appointment to the candidates which is seriously condemnable. Learned counsel also submits that the case of the petitioner squarely covers by the decision dtd. 2/2/2015 of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No.7614/2015. The conduct of the respondent authorities are violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.