Teerath Bati Kadiyam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:8679

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 3870 of 2017

¶6

Teerath Bati Kadiyam D/o Shri Manak Ram Kadiyam, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Taarbhata, Chhotedonger, Narayanpur, Police Station Chhotedonger, Tahsil And District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2. Collector, OfÏce of Collectorate, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK SHRIVAS SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.19 10:59:48 +0530

¶12

3. Smt. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, W/o Shri Vashudev Bhardwaj, Assistant Grade-IIl, OfÏce of Collector, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4. Ishwar Urvasha S/o Shri Moolchand Urvasha, Assistant Grade-Ill, OfÏce of Collector, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh.

¶14

	... Respondents
For Petitioner	: Mr. Abhishek Pandey along with Mr. Rishabh Dev Sahu, Advocates.
For Respondent No. 1 and 2/State.	: Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent No. 3 and 4	: Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate.

¶15

2

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

17.02.2026

¶19

1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Pandey along with Mr. Rishabh Dev Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. Sushil Dubey, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶20

2. This writ petition (s) has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief:

¶21

“ 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authorities to produce the entire service record of the petitioner before this Hon'be Court for its kind perusal.

¶22

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to quash impugned order No.1066/भቔኍD / स्थापना/विK.विL.एक/ 2017 Narayanpur, dated 7^th March, 2017 (Annexure P/4) issued by the respondent No.2/Collector, District- Narayanpur (CG).

¶23

10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to cancel the appointment of respondent No.4 Ishwar Urvasha on the post of Assistant Grade-III.

¶24

10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.2/Collector, Distt. Narayanpur to prepare a fresh merit list and thereby appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Grade-III which was reserved for scheduled tribe woman candidate.

¶25

10.5 That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay full salary, backwages and other consequential benefits to the petitioner from 8th March, 2017 to till date.

¶26

10.6 That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct

¶27

3

¶28

the respondent authorities to pay suitable compensation to the petitioner for the mental trauma and agony, harassment and hardships suffered by her as also grant cost of litigation to her.”

¶29

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an advertisement dated 27.09.2016 was issued by the OfÏce of the Collector, District – Narayanpur, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade–III for 04 posts. Out of the said four posts, one post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe open Category, one post for Other Backward Class, one post for Scheduled Tribe (Female), and one post for Scheduled Tribe (Ex-Serviceman). It is argued that the petitioner, who is a Scheduled Tribe (Female) candidate, along with respondent Nos. 3 and 4, submitted her application. Pursuant to the said advertisement, a merit list was prepared, followed by a selection list. In the selection list, respondent No. 3, namely, Sangeeta Bharadwaj, was appointed in the Scheduled Tribe (Female) category, and respondent No. 4, namely, Ishwar Urvasha, was appointed in the Scheduled Tribe (Open) category.

¶30

4. He further submits that respondent No. 3, Sangeeta Bharadwaj, obtained 58.9 marks. It is contended that if she had been placed in the Scheduled Tribe (Open) category, the petitioner would have been appointed in the Scheduled Tribe (Female) category.

¶31

5. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Ojha as well as Mr. Dubey submit that a total of four posts were advertised under the said advertisement, out of which two posts - one for Scheduled Tribe (Open) category and one for Scheduled Tribe (Female) category were reserved. The petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are all Scheduled Tribe candidates. Respondent No. 3, Sangeeta Bharadwaj, obtained 58.9 marks. Even if she were placed in the Scheduled Tribe (Female) category, the petitioner, who obtained 53.8 marks being less than the marks obtained by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 would not be

¶32

4

¶33

entitled to appointment in any category, either Scheduled Tribe (Open) or Scheduled Tribe (Female).

¶34

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

¶35

7. There is no dispute that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 are Scheduled Tribe (Female) candidates. All of them submitted applications pursuant to the advertisement, and a merit list was prepared. As per the merit list, respondent No. 3 obtained 58.9 marks and secured the first position, respondent No. 4 stood second with 55 marks, whereas the petitioner secured third position with 53.8 marks. As there were only two posts available for Scheduled Tribe (Open) and Scheduled Tribe (Female) categories, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed to the respective posts. Thus, admittedly, since the petitioner secured fewer marks than respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner do not merit acceptance. Under no circumstances, being lower in merit, could the petitioner’s claim have been considered by the respondents/State.

¶36

8. Accordingly, the writ petition (s) being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶39

Judge

¶40

Abhishek

Teerath Bati Kadiyam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teerath Bati Kadiyam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jaipal Nirala Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Baratu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Truhome Finance Limited Vs Malay Raha

Equitas Small Finance Bank Vs Chandra Shekhar Diwan

Suresh Kumar Deshmukh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Banshi Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh