* - Ambilika Sahu W/o Sunil Kumar Sahu, Aged About 34 Years Address v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Medical Health, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.29 12:08:59 +0530 2025:CGHC:35999 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4048 of 2018 * - Ambilika Sahu W/o Sunil Kumar Sahu, Aged About 34 Years Address - Village Charoda, Adarsh Nagar, Post - BMY Charoda, Tahsil - Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Medical Health, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Joint Director And Registrar, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital - Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Selection Committee, Headed By The Vice Chancellor, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital - Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Screening Committee, Constituted For The Post Of O.T. Technician And O.T. Supervisor, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital - Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Bhupendra Kumar Chandra, S/o Lakhan Lal Chandara, Aged About 33 Years Post - OT - Technician And Supervisor, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital - Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Harichandra Sahu, S/o Aaganlal Sahu, Aged About 30 Years Post - OT - Technician, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital - Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner For Respondents No. 1 to 4/ State : :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Shrijeeta Kesharwani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General 2 For Respondents No. 5 & 6 : Ms. Akansha Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24/07/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the appointment order issued in favour of respondents No. 5 & 6 to the post of Operation Theater Supervisor (O.T. Supervisor) and a further prayer has been made to consider her name for the appointment. 2. The facts of the case are that:- I. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur issued an Advertisement for contractual appointment on various posts, including one post of O.T. Technician and three posts of O.T. Supervisor on 25.11.2017. One of the conditions mentioned in the Advertisement was the requirement of experience in the Cardiac Department, I.C.U. and Casualty from a recognised Hospital. For experience, the maximum marks were 25 and 2.5 marks for every 06 months of experience. Out of 03 posts of O.T. Supervisors, 01 post was reserved for the ST category, whereas 02 posts were for the open category, and 01 post of O.T. Technician was for the open category. The minimum qualification for both posts was 10+2 with Biology, Physics and Chemistry along with a certificate or Diploma from a Government Institution in O.T./Anaesthesia Technician. Registration with the State Para Medical Council was a mandatory requirement. 3 II. The petitioner applied for both posts. After the examination, a merit list was published on 07.12.2017. The name of the petitioner was at the bottom. She made a representation on 25.04.2018. Respondents No. 5 and 6 were selected and later on, they were appointed to the post of O.T. Supervisors. III. The petitioner's representation was rejected on the ground that she failed to submit the experience certificate according to the norms of the Advertisement. IV. It is also pleaded in the petition that the petitioner secured higher marks than respondents No. 5 and 6, but her name was not considered. 3. Ms. Shrijeeta Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was a meritorious candidate. She would refer to the select list of O.T. Supervisors (Annexure- P/1), wherein the name of respondent No. 5 – Bhupendra Kumar Chandra appears at Serial No. 06, who secured 93 marks out of 150, and the name of respondent No. 06 – Harichandra Sahu appears at Serial No. 10, who secured 95 marks out of 150. They were found eligible. The name of the petitioner, Ambilika Sahu, was at Serial No. 36, and she had scored 100 marks out of 150. In the column “Name of Hospital/Institute” of the petitioner, Suyash Hospital is mentioned, but in the next column, it is mentioned that the required experience certificate was not annexed. She would also submit that the petitioner had the experience of 04 years and 05 months, and marks against the experience certificate were not awarded. She would further contend that a modified Advertisement was issued where the requirement of the experience certificate of the Cardiac department, ICU and casualty 4 from a recognised Hospital or Institute was relaxed, but the respondents failed to award marks against the experience to the petitioner. She would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General and Ms. Akansha Singh, learned Advocate appearing for respondents No. 5 and 6, would submit that Annexure- P/1 is a list of the eligible and ineligible candidates. They would further submit that the merit list was published subsequently, and the same has been annexed as Annexure- R/1. They would contend that the name of respondent No. 6 appears at Serial No. 1 in the list and the name of respondent No. 5 appears at Serial No. 2 and they scored more marks than the petitioner whose name appears at Serial No. 19. They would contend that the petitioner had no experience of working in Cardiac Department or I.C.U., therefore, marks for the experience were not awarded. It is also contended that for the post of O.T. Supervisor, the experience certificate issued by a recognised Hospital for working in the Cardiac Disease Department or I.C.U. and Casualty was mandatory. They would also contend that a subsequent advertisement was issued for O.T. Technician only, and the requirement of an experience certificate of the Cardiac Department was relaxed for that post only. They would argue that as respondents No. 5 and 6 were appointed to the post of O.T. Supervisors, the petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. The petitioner has challenged the selection and appointment of respondents No. 5 and 6 to the post of O.T. Supervisors. Eligibility 5 requirement for the said post was higher secondary with Biology, Physics and Chemistry, a certificate or Diploma in O.T./Anaesthesia Technician and live registration with the State Para Medical Council. Working experience in the Cardiac Department, I.C.U. and Casualty with a recognised Hospital was one of the mandatory requirements. 7. The modified Advertisement was issued for the post of O.T. Technician only on 05.04.2018, and the requirement of an experience certificate of working with the Cardiac Disease Department, I.C.U. and Casualty was relaxed. For the post of O.T. Supervisor, such experience was mandatory to get marks for the experience. The experience certificate submitted by the petitioner would show that she has not worked with the Cardiac Disease Department or I.C.U.; therefore, she was not awarded marks on the head of experience for the post of O.T. Supervisor. Respondents No. 5 and 6 had worked in the Cardiac Disease Department/I.C.U. for a considerable period; therefore, both were awarded 25 marks on the head of experience. The merit list annexed as Annexure- R/1 would show that respondent No. 5 secured 71.50 marks, respondent No. 6 secured 72.50 marks, whereas the petitioner secured 50.00 marks in total. Therefore, respondents No. 5 and 6 were appointed to the post of O.T. Supervisors. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the requirement of an experience certificate of the Cardiac Disease Department and I.C.U. was relaxed, but it pertained to the post of O.T. Technician only and thus, the contention appears to be misconceived. 9. Respondents No. 5 and 6 were meritorious; they had the required experience certificates. Therefore, they were appointed, but the 6 required experience certificate was not provided by the petitioner; therefore, marks for the experience were not awarded to her. 10. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the selection and appointment of respondents No. 5 and 6. 11. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti