/'^r'y Raipur (C.G.) (C.G.) ^'•^y 2) Chhattisgarh State Public Sendce Commission ^w' %F" Through its Chairman Shankar Nagar Road, Bhagat Singh Square Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF ^ INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF ^\ --.-.-.-„„.„--_. |^|| MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:-

¶14

%A.^

¶15

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR W.P.rS)No.6988of2009

PETITIONER

Dr. Arunima Dubey

Versus

RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & another

¶20

Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶21

Present:Shri Jitendra Pali, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate for the State.

¶22

ORALORDER .

¶23

(Passed on this 9th day ofJuly, 2014) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

The petitioner applied for participating in the selection process for recruitment of Assistant Professor (History), pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, vide advertisement Annexure P-1. In the said application form, there was a mention of post, department and subject in column No.2. Serial No.3 was the code provided for political science and serial No.5 was the code provided for history.

¶25

In the instructions issued to the candidates for filling up OMR form, it was provided in para 9 thereof that any candidate seeking relaxation in age limit shall mention the following code in column No.21 of the advertisement. Serial No.03 was the code for woman candidate.

¶26

According to the petitioner, while mentioning the subject code in column No.3 of the OMR form, she wrote subject code No.3, whereas, in fact the subject code alloted for history was "5". It is the case of the petitioner that this mistake was cQmmitted by her

¶27

i-S'--

¶28

because of confusion that on account of she being a woman candidate, for whom code No.3 was to be written in column 21 of the OMR form.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the High Court of Kerala has passed an order in the similar matter i.e. Vineetha v. Kerala State Public Service & others (W.A. No.2116 of 2010), decidedon 10-01-2011.

¶30

.L^'F

¶31

In the above matter before the Kerala High Court, it has been observed that mistake about mentioning the category code, if broughtto the notice of PSC well in advance, nothing prevents PSC to .correct the mistake. Although, in.the said case, PSC had permitted the candidate to appear in the examination and it was cancelled later on, however, it is also to be seen that the candidate wasallowed to appear merely on the basis of his request for correction but without actual correction of the category code in his application form.

¶32

In the case in hand, this Court passed an interim order on 27-112009, permitting^the petitioner^{toappearintheexamination,} however, her result was made s.ubject to the final outcome of the writ petition.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since after writing the examination, other posts have been filled ,up, but two posts of Assistant Professor (History) have been kept vacant. Therefore, if the petitioner's result is declared, it will not create any -

com pl icatio n.

^^")

Considering the interim order passed by this Court and the fact that in the present case also, the petitioner requested for correction in the category code as early as on 16-11-2009 and approached this Court by filing this writ petition on 25-11-2009 and .thereafter she tias appeared in the examination, it would be just, proper and expedient to direct the PSC to declare petitioner's result and take further steps in accordance with the result.

¶38

.9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

<:r;V
y

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge

¶42

"—:

Dr. Arunima Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr. Arunima Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naveen U. Shah Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Rupesh Kumar Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Ekka Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Narantak Ram Sahu and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Girja Shanker Mahalwar Vs State Govt.of C.G. and Others

Surendra Kumar Soni and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others