Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.11 13:17:30 +0530 2025:CGHC:39236 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5067 of 2021 1. Sanjaywati Singh D/o Suratjit Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Telsara Ramanujnagar, Patnakot , Surajpur , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Meera Singh W/o Manoj Kumar Aged About 25 Years R/o Navapara Kalan, Surajpur , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 3. Chameli Singh Maravi W/o Sevak Ram Maravi Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Tarkeshwarpur, Post Umeshwarpur, Tahsil Premnagar , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 4. Laxmiwati W/o Meghraj Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Salka , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Department Of Health And Family Welfare And Medical Education Through , Secretary , Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur Nagar, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. National Health Mission Through Its Mission Director, 3rd Floor, Cg Housing Board Commercial Complex, 4th Floor Sector 27, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh. 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector , Surajpur , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 4. Chief Medical And Health Officer Surajpur , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 5. Kaushilya Sahu W/o Laxmi Narayan Sahu Posted At Sub Health Center, Revati, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 6. Ritu Yadav W/o Krishna Kumar Posted At Sub Health Center, Mayapur , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 7. Priyanka Rajwade W/o Yogeshwar Prasad Posted At Sub Health Center, Bhediya, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 8. Pratibha Singh W/o Thakur Prasad Singh Posted At Sub Health Center, Bhakura, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 9. Annapurna W/o Maneshwar Singh Posted At Sub Health Center, Khond, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 10. Surajmaniya W/o Kansi Ram Posted At Sub Health Center, Paasal, 2 District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 11.Chandrawati Sahi W/o Sanjay Kumar Sahi Posted At Sub Health Center, Moharsop , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 12. Krishna Singh W/o Dakhal Say Posted At Sub Health Center, Mahangai, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 13. Pushpawati W/o Sadharan Posted At Sub Health Center, Tara, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 14. Sonkeliya W/o Dharmjeet Posted At Sub Health Center, Hariharpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 15. Somaro Rajwade W/o Tekram Rajwade Posted At Sub Health Center, Durgapur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 16. Kamlawati Rajwade W/o Moharlal Posted At Sub Health Center, Kanchanpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioners For State For Respondent No. 2 For Respondents No. 5 to 14 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06. 08.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash/set-aside the annexure P/1. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to follow the prescribed rules and procedures as specified in the National Health Mission Chhattisgarh Human resource Policy 2018 (Annexure P/3). 10.3 Any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper may also be awarded to the Petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that an advertisement was issued by respondent No. 4 for the recruitment of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife on a contract basis under the National Health Mission on 02.03.2021. He would further submit that the petitioners belong to the 3 Scheduled Tribe category and they applied for the said post. He would also submit that, according to one of the conditions of the advertisement, four marks to a candidate for every completed year of experience, subject to a maximum of 20 marks, was to be awarded. He would contend that the written examination was conducted, and thereafter, a merit list was published. He would further contend that petitioner No. 1 secured 60 %, petitioner No. 2 secured 50.96%, petitioner No. 3 secured 56.65% and petitioner No. 4 secured 57.11%. He would fairly submit that, as the petitioners did not have any experience certificates, marks were not awarded for experience. He would also contend that the private respondents were awarded up to 20 marks for experience, whereas according to the Chhattisgarh Human Resource Policy, 2018, framed by the National Health Mission, the maximum marks for experience were 15. It is stated that if 5 marks of selected candidates are deducted, the petitioners would be within the zone of consideration. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents would oppose. They would submit that the petitioners participated in the entire recruitment process, and when they could not get selected, they filed this petition. They would further submit that in the advertisement, it was categorically stated that four marks would be awarded to a candidate for every completed year of experience, subject to a maximum of 20 marks. They would also contend that the petitioners were aware of these facts, but did not challenge them before participating in the recruitment process. They would also contend that the recruitment process has already been concluded and appointment orders were issued way back in the year 2021; therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioners participated in the recruitment process, and when they could not be selected, they filed this petition. A maximum of 20 marks for experience was mentioned in the advertisement itself, and this fact was in the knowledge of the petitioners, but they never challenged it and happily participated in the recruitment process. It is not in dispute that, according to the Chhattisgarh Human Resource Policy, 2018, a maximum of 15 marks could have been awarded for experience to the candidates having valid experience certificates. The private respondents submitted experience certificates and were awarded marks ranging from 8 to 20 marks. The private respondents No. 5 to 13 have secured 66% marks and above, whereas the petitioner No. 1 has secured the highest 60% marks. Respondent No. 14 selected candidate Sonkeliya has secured 64.07 % and she was awarded only 8 marks for experience. If 5 marks awarded to any of the selected candidates for experience are deducted, none of the petitioners would come within the zone of consideration. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant