Geeta Sahu Vs Union of India

By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint her to the post of Paramedical Staff and also seeks compensation on account of her nonselection in the final select list.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement issued for recruitment to the post of Paramedical Staff, the petitioner participated in the selection process. She successfully qualified the Computer Based Test (CBT) and was thereafter called for the Skill Test. He further submits that during the medical examination, the authorities found that the petitioner was pregnant and, therefore, declared her temporarily unfit with a direction to appear for the Review Medical Examination (RME) after six weeks from the termination of pregnancy. Learned counsel further contends that after the termination of pregnancy, the petitioner approached the respondents along with the requisite fitness certificate, but despite the same, she was not selected for the post. Hence, the present petition.

¶23

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that during the medical examination, the petitioner was declared temporarily unfit on account of pregnancy, as her urine pregnancy test was found positive. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application along with a fitness certificate after six

¶24

3

¶25

weeks of her normal delivery. She submits that when her case was considered for determination of her merit position, it was found that she had not secured the requisite cut-off marks for selection. By referring to Annexures R/5 and R/6, learned counsel submits that the petitioner secured only 57 marks, whereas the cut-off marks for the OBC category were 65 marks. Since her name did not find place in the final merit list of selected candidates, she was rightly not offered appointment.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶27

It is not in dispute that the petitioner participated in the selection process and was declared temporarily unfit during the initial medical examination on account of pregnancy, whereafter she was advised to undergo the Review Medical Examination (RME). Thereafter, her candidature was considered on the basis of her merit position. However, it was found that the petitioner had secured only 57 marks, whereas the prescribed cut-off marks for the OBC category were 65 marks. Consequently, she did not find place in the final merit list of selected candidates and was, therefore, not entitled to appointment. The contention of the petitioner that no communication regarding her non-selection was issued is also without substance, as the communication dated 03.07.2024 (Annexure R/5) clearly informed the petitioner that her name did not find place in the final merit list and, therefore, no Detailed Medical Examination (DME) was required in her case.

¶28

4

¶29

Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to establish any legal right to seek appointment or compensation. Since the petitioner did not secure the requisite cut-off marks prescribed for her category, the action of the respondents in not selecting her cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. No case for interference is made out.

¶30

As an upshot, the writ petition sans substratum, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed , leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶31

Sd/(Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE

¶32

$. Bhilwar

Geeta Sahu v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta Sahu v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Kumar Rathore Vs Shri Janmejay Mahobe

Ayush Tiwari Vs Mr. Rahul Dev Director

Amresh Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamlesh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh