MITHILESH OJHA Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed to cancel the examination of Pharmacist-II held for Jashpur district and to consider the candidature of the petitioner after verification of the document.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to an advertisement dtd. 18/07/2016 (Annexure P/1) he applied for the post of Pharmacist and appeared in written examination and qualified the said examination by securing district rank 5 in the order of merit as per Annexure P/3. According to the petitioner, the publication so made by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (VYAPAM), the entire process of examination and the subsequent examination was to be published in the official website of the VYAPAM. It is submitted by the petitioner that after selection of the petitioner, the documents were required to be verified and as per Annexure P/4 a press note was issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Jashpur on 14/12/2016 which were not made known on time and the petitioner could not file document for verification, therefore, there is a clear deviation from the rules and procedure adopted by the respondent/VYAPAM and the State, as the entirety of the examination should have covered the intimation for the date of counseling and the documents to be verified.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that thereafter the date of filing of the documents for verification was fixed from 15/11/2016 to 17/11/2016. Having came to know of the fact, the petitioner filed an objection/representation dtd. 23/11/2016 to highlight that he has secured 5th rank in the order of merit and since the application so invited in the website of Jashpur district his name was not included, he could not file the documents, therefore, he may be allowed to place the documents for verification but the same was dismissed by the order dtd. 07/12/2016 (Annexure R/3) by the Chief Medical Officer, Jashpur on the ground that no provision exist to file the documents after the last date of filing documents from 15/11/2016 to 17/11/2016. Therefore, the petitioner was wrongly deprived of his right to be considered for appointment on the wrong facts and on hypertechnicalities.