1 / 5
2024:CGHC:33220
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5025 of 2015
Manisha Mandavi D/o Sarju Singh Mandavi, Aged About 26 Years R/o
Vishwa Bank Colony, Gaiyatri Nagar, Bhilai 3, Tahsil Patan, District
Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Food And Drugs
Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
2. The Director Department Selection Committee, Food And Drugs
Administration, Block 1, Fourth Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
3. The Controller Department Selection Committee, Food And Drugs
Administration, Block 1, Fourth Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur,
Chhattisgarh. The Collector Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
4. Mary Shruti Lakra, D/o Sefereous Lakra, R/o Block 4/ A, Vinayak
Parisar, Bajaj Colony, Ward No. 38, Hemunagar, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Advocate along with
Mr. Purnachand, Advocate
For State : Ms. Nilima Singh Thakur, P. L.
For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
30/08/2024
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the appointment
order dated 18.02.2014 issued in favour of respondent No. 4 and has
sought a direction to the respondents for her appointment to the post of
Drug Inspector.
2. Facts of the present case are that the petitioner passed B. Pharma in
2 / 5
the year 2013 from Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Institute of Pharmacy,
Kumhari and thereafter she participated in the recruitment process for
the post of Drug Inspector pursuant to the advertisement issued on
10.10.2013. The last date for submission of the application form was
25.10.2013. The petitioner belongs to the ST category. There were only
2 posts reserved under the ST category, out of which 1 post was
reserved for the ST (Female). Admit cards were issued to petitioner
and other eligible candidates and they participated in the online
examination. Thereafter, the result was declared on 18.02.2014. The
petitioner secured 60 marks in the written examination whereas
respondent No. 4 secured 62 marks. The final select list was published
on 18.02.2014 wherein respondent No. 4 was meritorious therefore,
she was selected and duly appointed against the post reserved for the
ST (Female). The petitioner remained at S. No. 4 on the Wait List. The
petitioner applied under RTI seeking mark sheets of the petitioner as
well as respondent No. 4 and that information was supplied to the
petitioner on 30.04.2014. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the
information sought from the Public Information Officer made a
complaint on 08.09.2014. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing
the order of appointment dated 18.02.2014.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the OMR sheet was not
properly checked by the examiner and there was a miscalculation of
marks. He argues that there is a difference in the answer sheets of the
petitioner and respondent No. 4 supplied by the Public Information
Officer. He contends that the petitioner has secured more marks than
respondent No. 4 therefore, the appointment of respondent No. 4 is
liable to be quashed.
3 / 5
4. On the other hand, Mr. Jitendra Pali, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent No. 4 opposes. He submits that as per the
information supplied to the petitioner under RTI, respondent No. 4 had
secured 62 marks whereas the petitioner secured only 60 marks. He
argues that a complete chart was prepared by the agency that
conducted the examination and the same has been placed along with
the return. According to the chart, the petitioner had secured lesser
marks than respondent No. 4, therefore respondent No. 4 was selected
and duly appointed. He contends that OMR sheets were examined by
computer according to model answer key which was prepared by
experts and thus, there is no possibility of any manipulation or
alteration. It is also submitted that respondent No. 4 was appointed in
the year 2014 itself whereas this petition was filed after a lapse of one
year. He states that this petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Ms. Nilima Singh Thakur, the learned counsel appearing for the State
submits that the examination was conducted by MeritTrac Services Pvt.
Ltd. and this agency has not been arrayed as respondent. She argues
that the petitioner participated in the entire recruitment process and on
remaining unsuccessful, she filed this petition challenging the
appointment of respondent No. 4. She also prays that this petition
deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
documents placed on the record.
7. Evidently, the petitioner, respondent No. 4 and other eligible candidates
participated in the recruitment process for the post of Drug Inspector
pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.10.2013. A written examination
with MCQs was held by an independent agency, namely MeritTrac
4 / 5
Services Pvt. Ltd. in which the petitioner and other eligible candidates
participated in the online examination on 24.01.2024 in which they had
to put their answers on OMR sheets. The OMR sheets submitted by
the candidates were checked by computer as per the model answer
key. The examination conducting agency prepared a chart showing
marks secured by all candidates. From a perusal of that chart, it is
apparent that the petitioner secured 60 marks out of 100 whereas
respondent No. 4 secured 62 marks out of 100 marks. The final select
list was published on 18.02.2014. There was only one post reserved for
the ST (Female) and respondent No. 4 being meritorious, was selected
and duly appointed against that post. The name of the petitioner
appears at S. No. 4 on the Wait List. The petitioner has filed this
petition on the ground that she applied for OMR sheets and mark
sheets twice and on both occasions, different marks were provided to
her.
8. A perusal of the chart and even the information provided by the Public
Information Officer would reveal that the petitioner secured 60 marks
whereas respondent No. 4 secured 62 marks. There was a difference
in the information provided by the Public Information officer but the
same cannot be made a foundation to quash the appointment order
issued in favour of respondent No. 4 in the absence of any irregularity,
manipulation or alteration. The petitioner and other candidates put their
answers on OMR sheets and the same were checked by the computer
in accordance with the model answer key issued by MeritTrac Services
Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, there was minimal possibility of any modification,
alternation or manipulation.
9. Moreover, the petitioner was placed at S. No. 4 on the Wait List,
5 / 5
therefore no right accrued in her favour to claim an appointment from
the Wait List as three candidates who were placed at S.Nos. 1, 2 and 3
would be considered before her if such condition had arisen and those
candidates have not approached this Court.
10. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, in the considered
opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference.
Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
JUDGE
Ajinkya