2024:CGHC:29572-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 191 of 2020 Mithlesh Vishwakarma W/o Late Holar Vishwakarma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Dhol (Jamul) District Durg Chhattisgarh 490024, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Chief Engineer Rural Engineering Services OfÏce Of Developmental Commissioner Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Development OfÏcer Panchayat And Rural Development Department Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

0 7 / 0 8 / 2024

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 10187/2019 by which the challenge made to the notification dated 01.06.2019 whereby the respondent No. 2 had decided to go in for a fresh recruitment process for filling up of the four posts of Driver in women category, has been turned down.

2. The facts of the case, as projected by the appellant are that the Development OfÏcer, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Panchayat and Rural Development Department) issued an advertisement dated 24.06.2017 inviting applications for the 17 vacant posts of drivers to be appointed in the scheme classified for aiding the village transport services in the state of Chhattisgarh. The said advertisement also published the requisite qualifications and requirements that a prospective applicant must possess in order to be appointed on the said post. According to the appellant, the said advertisement was not gender centric, as the advertisement did not prevent any particular gender to apply his/her candidature for the said posts. Thereafter, the appellant herein applied pursuant to the said advertisement along with the requisite documents in order to offer her candidature for the said posts. Subsequently, a list of eligible candidates was issued by the respondent Department on 05.08.2017 wherein the appellant was considered eligible for getting employed in the post of driver. After publishing a list of eligible candidates the recruiting Department invited objections against the eligible candidates from the concerned persons. In reply to the same the appellant herein submitted her objections wherein she categorically stated that as per the reservation policy of the State 33% of the jobs were entitled to be reserved for female applicants. However the objection of the appellant was rejected vide meeting dated 21.08.2017 wherein it was stated that as per the conditions of the advertisement, 30% reservation rule cannot be applied on the advertisement dated 24.06.2017.

3. After rejecting the objection of the appellant, the respondent authorities took the eligibility test of all the eligible candidates but did not call the appellant for the same despite considering her eligible for getting employed in the post of driver. Subsequently, on 11.09.2017, the respondent department released a list of 13 bus drivers who were selected for the 17 posts which were advertised as vacant in the above mentioned advertisement.

4. According to Mr. Bhaduri, the candidature of the appellant was not even considered as the respondent Department was bound to consider the candidature of the appellant therein in light of the 30% horizontal reservation policy. The appellant thereafter, made representations before the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Hon'ble Governor and also before the National Commission for women for the purpose of considering her candidature for the advertised post and to provide her the requisite benefits of the reservation rule for the desir