Kiran Prabha vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Harish Khuntiya, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State.

The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 21.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 445 of 2023 (Kiran Prabha v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner.

The grievance raised in the writ petition was that the respondent No. 2 uploaded the information with regard to the date of counselling for document verification without intimating the petitioner on her postal address. In pursuance to the advertisement for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science), the petitioner filled her online application form along with their complete postal address. The petitioner is successful in the examination. The respondent No. 2 uploaded the information with regard to the date of counselling for document verification which was held on 18.05.2022 without personally intimating the petitioner on her postal address because of which the petitioner could not participate in the counselling process. The petitioner approached the respondent authorities to provide one more opportunity for document verification which was denied.

From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that though no return was filed to the writ petition, the Assistant Director, Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Public Instructions of Chhattisgarh had submitted that looking to large number of candidates, they had not adopted any procedure for issuance of individual call letters but taken the help of web portal which consisted of all the details of the process to be required in the selection.

The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, rightly dismissed the writ petition holding that the respondents had adopted uniform process for the appointment. The process adopted by the respondent/State did not seem to be unfair or suffered from arbitrariness. It had been unanimously applied on the post of Assistant Teachers and Teachers by adopting same process and the appointment has already been made, therefore, submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has not been given opportunity to participate in the document verification procedure is incorrect submission of facts which cannot be accepted.

The appellant has failed to point-out any discrimination in the process adopted by the respondents as all the candidates had to go through the same process.

We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly the present writ appeal is dismissed.