NIRMALA CHOUHAN Vs. HIGH COURT OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges the memo dtd. 17/2/2016, whereby approval for her appointment as Peon has been denied on the ground that she belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category and secured 20 marks in the examination, whereas no post was reserved for woman of the Scheduled Tribe category. It is contended that, petitioner got more marks than the unreserved woman candidate, the petitioner ought to have been considered against an unreserved category post.

(2.) The facts leading to the present petition are that pursuant to the advertisement for the post of Peon/Chowkidar/Waterman/Gardener the petitioner applied for the post of peon. In the examination she obtained 20 marks. After preparation of select list the petitioner finds place at serial no. 3.

(3.) It is submitted that the select list was issued for the unreserved (female) category. It is further submitted that, as per the advertisement, no post was reserved for the Scheduled Tribe (female) category, and three posts were advertised for the unreserved (female) category. Out of the three posts under the unreserved (female) category, three candidates, namely Darshana Sharma, ArarnaRajoria, and Ruchi Vishwakarma, who secured 25, 20, and 17 marks respectively in the selection process, were selected in the final select list. No selection was made against the Scheduled Tribe (female) category. Further, the last selected candidate in the unreserved (female) category secured 17 marks, and several candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes category were selected under the unreserved category. That the petitioner, who belongs to the Scheduled Tribe category and secured 20 marks, has not been selected under the unreserved (female) category, despite there being no post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe (female) category. Hence, the present petition has been filed on the following grounds.