Disposed¶33

Vrishbhanu Kumar Tandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Writ Petition (Civil) – registration as Para Medical Technician – Chhattisgarh Para Medical Council

Chhattisgarh HC11 Nov 2025WPC/1515/2022

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPC No. 1515 of 2022; Vrishbhanu Kumar Tandey & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.; Registrar, Chhattisgarh Para Medical Council; para-medical technician registration; mandamus; 2012 application pending; discrepancies in documents; fresh application permitted; decision directed preferably within three months; disposed of on 12/11/2025; Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to submit a fresh application for registration before respondent No.2; respondent No.2 directed to consider and decide such application expeditiously, preferably within three months from its submission, in accordance with law. ¶33

Vrishbhanu Kumar Tandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

2025:CGHC:55046

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1515 of 2022

¶6

1 - Vrishbhanu Kumar Tandey S/o Shri Manmohan Kumar Tandey Aged About 42 Years Working As Medical Lab Technologist In I.C.T.C. Department Of Micro Biology C.I.M.S. Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - Sukhnandan Ram Sahu S/o Shri Ramji Sahu Aged About 40 Years Working As Senior T.B. , Lab Supervisor Office, District T.B. Office, Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

--- Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department , Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Registrar Chhattisgarh Para Medical Council, Office At Old Nurses Hostel, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 03-042025)

¶12

3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

--- Respondent(s)

¶14

____________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 & 3 : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Kulesh Sahu, Advocate

¶15

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.14 14:28:11 +0530

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order On Board

12/11/2025

Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :-

¶21

“10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to issue the registration order in favour of the petitioners for the Para Medical Technician in accordance with law.

¶22

10.2 Any other relief, which may be deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner.”

¶23

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners were working as Lab Technician on contract basis under respondent authorities. Subsequently they have submitted an application before respondent No.2 for registration as medical technician, however, respondent No.2 has not considered the claim of petitioners and till date, the registration certificate has not been issued.

¶24

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that according to his oral instructions, there are discrepancies in the application submitted by petitioners and in the documents, which is enclosed along with the application, therefore, he may be granted three weeks time to file detailed reply.

¶25

Learned State counsel submits that grievance of petitioners is against respondent No.2, Registrar, Chhattisgarh Para Medical Council.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for parties.

¶27

During the course of argument, learned counsel for petitioners made statement that application submitted by petitioners for their registration

¶28

¶29

as early as in the year 2012, which is enclosed along with this writ petition as Annexure P-1 is not considered till date and petitioners have not registered in the register maintained by the respondent No.2.

¶30

The submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that they found certain discrepancies in their applications.

¶31

From the aforementioned facts of the case, it is apparent that the applications submitted by petitioners are still pending consideration and no decision has been taken by respondent No.2 on merits till date.

¶32

In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case and further considering that application stated to be submitted by petitioners in the year 2012, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage permitting petitioner to submit fresh application for their registration before respondent No.2 in accordance with law and if such application is submitted by petitioners, respondent No.2 shall consider and take decision on their application expeditiously preferably within further period of three months from the date of submission of application in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly.

¶33

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶34

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶35

Balram

Vrishbhanu Kumar Tandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vrishbhanu Kumar Tandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Singhania Vs Union of India

Ajay Das Mahant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Das Mahant, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukti Dal Women Self Help Group Jhalariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harishankar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh