HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION S No 5007 of 2008
Ku Manju Singh
...Petitioners
VERSUS
1 State of Chhattisgarh
2 The Inspector General Jail
3 Bhupendra Kumar Devangan
4 Sunil Kumar
...Respondents
! Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner
^ Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 1 and 2
Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Advocate for the respondent No. 3
Shri Pravin Tulsyan, Advocate for the respondent No. 4
Honble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J
Dated: 22/04/2009
: Judgement
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
ORAL ORDER
(Passed on 22nd day of April, 2009)
1. Challenge in this petition is to the appointment of
a male candidate against the post reserved for a woman
candidate on the post of “Silai Prashikshak”.
2. The facts, in brief, are that pursuant to the
advertisement dated 2.11.2007 (Annexure P/2),
applications were invited from the candidates for
appointment on the post of Silai Prashikshak. It is
clearly stated in the advertisement that one seat is
available in unreserved category for male and one for
women candidate. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner, being a woman, made an application for
appointment on the said post. The respondents 1 and 2
have appointed respondent No. 3 against one post under
unreserved category for male member and the respondent
No. 4 against the post reserved for a woman candidate
under the unreserved category. Thus, the appointment of
respondent No. 4 is bad and contrary to the notification
as the same defeats the purpose of reservation for a
woman candidate.
3. Shri Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the
respondent No. 1 and 2 submits that the respondent No. 3
and 4 secured more marks than the petitioner,
accordingly, the respondent No. 3 and 4 were appointed as
Silai Prashikshak even against the post reserved for a
woman candidate. There was 25 minimum marks prescribed
for appointment.
4. Shri Dubey further submits that as per General
Administration Department’s circular dated 10.02.1997, if
a suitable women candidate is not available, the post
shall not be carried forward, but the same may be filled
up by a male candidate.
5. Shri Tulsyan, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 4 submits that the minimum marks
prescribed was 25 as per clause 9 of the advertisement.
Smt. Mirza submits that the respondent No. 3 has secured
maximum marks, thus, the respondent No. 3 is entitled to
be appointed against the post reserved for a male
candidate.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended
thereto. I have found that there is no minimum qualifying
marks prescribed for the post. It has admittedly been
made clear that out of two posts vacant under unreserved
category, one post was meant for male and the second was
for a woman candidate. The basic purpose of reservation
is to provide assistance to the weaker section of the
society who cannot compete with the general category
candidates.
7. The contention of Shri Tulsyan that there is a
provision of minimum qualifying marks is rejected as on
bare perusal of the advertisement, there is no prescribed
minimum qualification. No other document or statutory
provision under rules or regulation have been produced in
support of the contention that there was a minimum
qualifying or cut-off marks. Since no minimum qualifying
marks was fixed, the petitioner cannot be held as not
suitable candidate. Thus, reliance of the State counsel
on the above-stated circular is not applicable to the
facts of the case. If the stand taken by learned counsel
appearing for the State is accepted that would defeat the
very purpose of reservation.
8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appointment
of respondent No. 4 is contrary to the reservation policy
as well as the advertisement dated 2.11.2007. The
petitioner, being a woman candidate having proper marks
in her category, is entitled to be appointed against the
post reserved for a woman candidate. Thus, the petition
is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to be appointed in
place of respondent No. 4 who has got lesser marks than
the respondent No. 3.
JUDGE