Disposed¶31

Prasoon Goyal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Sept 2025WPS/1168/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012; Rule 4(2) & (3); Rule 5(2); walk-in interview dated 25.01.2023 (Annexure P/2); contractual/samvida appointment; retired government servants preference; General Administration Department approval; direction to consider application or representation; merits not considered at this stage; Prasoon Goyal v. State of Chhattisgarh; WPS No. 1168 of 2023; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad; order dated 23/09/2025; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with observation and direction that, if the relevant post is available and the petitioner is deemed suitable in all respects, the authorities shall duly consider his application or representation; merits of the challenge to the walk-in interview not considered at this stage.

Prasoon Goyal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the walk-in interview dated 25.01.2023 (Annexure P/2) is illegal, unauthorised and liable to be quashed for non-compliance with Rules 4(2) & (3) and 5(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

Since the appointment in question is contractual, initially for one year with possibility of extension, the petitioner's case does not warrant favourable consideration on its merits at this juncture; it is not a fit case for considering the merits of the application at present, though it may be revisited in future upon fulfilment of necessary criteria.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

If the relevant post is available and the petitioner is deemed suitable in all respects, the authorities are directed to duly consider his application or representation.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPS No. 1168 of 2023, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J., 23.09.2025) challenging a walk-in interview advertisement dated 25.01.2023 (Annexure P/2) for contractual appointment, on the plea that Rules 4(2) & (3) and 5(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012 were not followed — i.e., no approval of the General Administration Department was obtained and fresh candidates were invited contrary to the mandate to invite retired government servants. The Court, noting that the appointment was contractual, initially for one year with possibility of extension, held that the petitioner's case did not warrant consideration on merits at that juncture, while directing that if the relevant post is available and the petitioner is deemed suitable in all respects, the authorities shall duly consider his application or representation. Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶1

¶2

2025:CGHC:48831

¶3

RAGHVENDRAJAT Digitallysigned byRAGHVENDRAJAT

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 1168 of 2023

¶7

1 - Prasoon Goyal S/o Dr. V. K. Goyal Aged About 35 Years R/o M/1, Greenland Colony, Vishal Nagar Raipur 492006, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Health Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Director Medical Education Old Nurses Hostel Bhawan, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan Parisar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Advocate along with
	Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State	: Mr. AjayKumar Pandey, G.A.

¶14

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

23/09/2025

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶19

“a. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition by holding that before issuing Annexure P/2 walk in interview dated 25.01.2023 no rule of Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012 (Annexure P/1) rule 4(2) &(3) further rule 5(2) has also not fulfilled, because contract has to be filled up from retired government servants and not otherwise, therefore it be held that walk in interview dated 25.01.2023 (Annexure P/2) is illegal, without authority, unwarranted, premature, because rule 4 & 5 were not followed as stated above, therefore petition be allowed with costs.

¶20

b. Cost of the petition be awarded and

¶21

c. Any other relief or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded.”

¶22

Brief facts of the case, is that, respondent No. 1 has framed the Chhattisgarh Civil Sewa (Samvida Niyukti) Niyam, 2012, under which Rule 4(2) and (3) prescribe that a vacancy of a sanctioned post can be filled only if it is likely to remain vacant for one year or more due to unavoidable reasons, or if, after advertisement, no government servant meeting the minimum eligibility is available, or if the post cannot be filled by promotion for unavoidable reasons, in such cases, the approval of the General

¶23

¶24

Administration Department is mandatory. However, in this case, no such approval was obtained. Moreover, contrary to Rule 5(2), which mandates inviting retired government servants, fresh candidates were called instead. Therefore, the walk-in interview advertisement dated 25.01.2023 is illegal, unauthorized, and liable to be quashed. Hence, this petition is filed.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the petitioner should be granted the opportunity to submit an application or representation before the relevant authorities. If there exists any vacancy or post that corresponds to the petitioner’s qualifications, the petitioner ought to be allowed to apply for the same. It is further requested that the authorities be directed to duly consider and decide upon such application or representation in a fair and timely manner, ensuring that the petitioner’s eligibility and qualifications are appropriately evaluated in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.

¶26

On the other hand learned counsel representing the State has firmly opposed this position, presenting arguments grounded in legal principles and precedent to substantiate their stance. They contend that the matter at hand warrants a different interpretation or outcome, emphasizing considerations that, in their view, outweigh those advanced by the opposing party. The State’s counsel has meticulously articulated their objections, underscoring the implications of adopting the alternative perspective and advocating for the upholding of the current legal framework or

¶27

¶28

procedural posture in question.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶30

Taking into account the submissions presented by the parties and acknowledging that if the relevant post is available and the petitioner is deemed suitable in all respects, the authorities are hereby directed to duly consider his application or representation. However, given that the appointment in question is on a contractual basis, initially set for a period of one year with the possibility of extension, I find that at this juncture, the petitioner’s case does not warrant a favorable consideration on its merits. Therefore, while the application may be revisited in the future contingent upon fulfillment of the necessary criteria, therefore, at present I am not considered present to be a fit case for considering the merits of the application.

¶31

With this observation and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶34

Judge

¶35

Raghu Jat

Prasoon Goyal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasoon Goyal 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Ameen Khan Vs Dashrath Korram

Ganesh Ram Vs Mahboob Khan

Shailesh Mounas Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sumitra Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Amit Kumar Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh