Digitally signed by 2026:CGHC:4259 SHAYNA KADRI NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 918 of 2023

1 - Smt. Yogita Verma D/o Shri Omprakash Verma Aged About 31 Years R/o House No. 282, Sector-1, Road No. 6, Professor Colony, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

... Petitioner versus

1 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Raipur Raipur, Seed Bhawan, G.E. Road, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Yashraj Verma, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

23/01/2026

1. The present writ petition is being filed seeking following reliefs:-

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to consider and decide the petitioner's objection/ representation (Annexure P/4) within stipulated time.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to issue appointment order in favour of petitioner on the post of Mandi Inspector under her category.

10.3 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given”

2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner being eligible and qualified, participated in the selection process initiated by the respondent authority. The respondent authority issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Mandi Inspector (MSI), notifying a total of 22 vacancies. Out of the said vacancies, 7 posts were reserved for female candidates, namely 3 posts for Unreserved (Female), 1 post for OBC (Female), 1 post for Scheduled Caste (Female), and 2 posts for Scheduled Tribe (Female). The petitioner belongs to the OBC category and secured 106.419 marks in the recruitment process. She stood 4^th in the overall female merit list and 2^nd in the OBC (Female) category, thereby legitimately expecting her selection against the reserved post meant for OBC female candidates. Subsequently, the respondent authority issued a list of selected candidates. To the surprise of the petitioner, the said list contained the names of only 18 selected candidates, despite the advertisement having notified 22 posts. Further, the list reflected selection of only one OBC candidate and failed to disclose the category-wise status of the selected candidates, thereby creating ambiguity and raising serious doubts regarding the transparency of the selection process. Aggrieved by the apparent irregularities and discrepancies, the petitioner submitted an objection before the respondent authorities seeking clarification. However, no clear or satisfactory response was provided, which further strengthened the petitioner’s apprehension regarding the fairness and legality of the recruitment process. Left with no efficacious remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authority has failed to act in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement issued by itself. The recruitment process, as conducted, is contrary to the notified scheme of selection and, therefore, vitiated in law. It is further submitted that the respondent authority did not publish a complete and transparent select list along with the marks obtained by the selected candidates. Non-disclosure of marks has created serious doubt about the fairness and legality of the recruitment procedure and violates the principles of transparency and equal opportunity. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner secured second rank in the OBC (Female) category and fourth rank in the overall female merit list, yet the respondent authority has failed to disclose the marks obtained by other candidates. Such non- disc