32.28 marks. Before the issuance of the order of appointment, respondent No. 4 moved an application and refused to join the services on 13.03.2013 before the Project Officer, even though the appointment order issued in favour of respondent No. 4 was challenged by the petitioner before the Collector, Mahasamund by filing an appeal. Vide Order dated 10.03.2014, the appeal was allowed and the appointment of respondent No. 4 was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner secured higher marks than respondent No. 4 and an application along with an affidavit was moved by respondent No. 4 showing her inability to join the services. Respondent No. 4 preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division and the same was allowed vide Order dated 11.09.2014 on the ground that the findings recorded by the Collector with regard to the merit of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 are erroneous. It is categorically held by the Additional Commissioner that Smt. Tarini Patel i.e. respondent No. 4 secured 33.24 marks, whereas the petitioner secured 32.28 marks and though respondent No. 4 was meritorious, she was rightly appointed by the Appointing Authority. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Additional Commissioner by filing this petition.
