JUDGMENT

Parth Prateem Sahu, J. - Both the writ appeals arise out of impugned order dated 07.02.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.6980 of 2007, therefore, both the writ appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, Writ Appeal No.694 of 2018 is taken as lead case.

3. Facts of the case in nutshell are that, respondent-Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'CGPSC') issued an advertisement on 24.05.2006 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to various posts in the State Civil Services, including 44 posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police (hereinafter referred to as 'DSP'). In pursuance to said advertisement, respondent No.1, namely, Mrs. Vanshika Rohit Dalmia as well as respondent No.2, namely, Suresh Kumar Choubey, (appellant in Writ Appeal No.384 of 2018) submitted their application forms and their candidature was considered for selection to the post of DSP. Name of respondent No.2 came in the merit list at Sl.No.4 and name of respondent No.1 came in wait list at Sl.No.2. Out of 44 posts, 24 posts were marked for unreserved category candidates.

4. Respondent No.1-Mrs. Vanshika Rohit Dalmia filed Writ Petition (S) No.6980 of 2007 on the ground that respondent No.2 has been shown as male candidate in most of the documents submitted by respondent No.2, in which, name of the candidate is mentioned as "Suresh Kumar Choubey", whereas respondent No.2 was selected on the post of DSP as female candidate. Only because of respondent No.2 was treated as female candidate, she succeeded in getting place in merit list of unreserved female category post.

5. The contention of the writ petitioner is that respondent No.2 being a male candidate, but had been appointed on the post of DSP as female candidate. The other ground of writ petitioner was that domicile certificate (Annexure P/5) submitted by Suresh Kumar Choubey is forged/fabricated as revenue case mentioned in the said domicile certificate on an enquiry revealed that, said proceeding was the proceeding for issuance of domicile certificate to one Sundari Bai. Initially, she filed a writ petition with the following reliefs :

"7.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to produce the entire record including the medical/physical report of the respondent No.5 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court;

7.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the selection and appointment of the respondent No.5 (Annexure P-7) on the post of DSP in female category as null and void;

7.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to initiate inquiry against the respondent No.5;

7.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to impose heavy cost upon the respondent No.5;

7.5 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner."

6. Relief No.7.3(a) has been sought for by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 only by way of filing of amendment application on 03.03.2017, which was allowed by the Court on 25.04.2017 and in that amended relief, writ petitioner/respondent No.1 asked for relief of her appointment on the post of DSP. Amended relief 3(a) sought for by respondent No.1 is as under :-

"3(a) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in place of the respondent No.5, namely Suresh Kumar Choubey or in an alternative direct the respondent State to consider and give appointment to the petitioner from wating-list on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police w.e.f. 17.05.2007 with all consequential benefits."

7. Respondent No.2-Suresh Kumar Choubey submitted reply to writ petition and denied all the adverse pleadings made against her and pleaded that on