Allowed¶29

Damin Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC18 Sept 2025WPS/2128/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Staff Nurse recruitment Chhattisgarh; cancellation of selection for applying to two divisions contrary to clause 4 of advertisement; no show cause notice before cancellation; selection already acted upon by joining; no prejudice to State; Article 226 writ allowed; impugned order Annexure P/1 quashed; reinstatement within 30 days; back wages denied for non-working period; interim order 07/06/2021 keeping post vacant; WPS No. 2128 of 2021; Justice Sachin Singh Rajput; Damin Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16/03/2021 (Annexure P/1) set aside/quashed; petitioner to be allowed to continue if working, failing which respondents directed to reinstate her in service within 30 days of receipt of copy of the order; no entitlement to back wages for the period she was not working. ¶29

Damin Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's selection could be cancelled with immediate effect on the ground that she had applied in two divisions in violation of clause 4 of the advertisement, particularly when she was selected and appointed in only one division and the appointment had been acted upon. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The impugned order (Annexure P/1) purports to cancel the petitioner's selection, not her appointment; the selection had already been acted upon by giving her joining, so the cancellation was untenable.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Even assuming the petitioner applied for two different divisions, since she was selected in only one division, allowing her to perform her duties would cause no prejudice to the State; such extreme steps were not warranted.

¶27

Key takeaways

No show cause notice was given to the petitioner before passing the cancellation order.ratio¶27
Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order (Annexure P/1) is set aside/quashed; if still working the petitioner may continue, and if removed she is to be reinstated within 30 days, but she will not be entitled to back wages for the period she was not working.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), WPS No. 2128 of 2021 (Sachin Singh Rajput, J., 19/09/2025) — Recruitment of Staff Nurse — Cancellation of selection by order dated 16/03/2021 (Annexure P/1) on the ground that the candidate had applied in two divisions (Bilaspur and Raipur) contrary to clause 4 of the advertisement, held unsustainable: (i) the order cancelled the 'selection' although the appointment dated 08/03/2021 stood acted upon by the candidate joining on 12/03/2021 after resigning her contractual post at CHC Dongargarh; (ii) no show cause notice was issued before cancellation; and (iii) the candidate having been selected in only one division, her continuation would cause no prejudice to the State. Writ petition under Article 226 allowed; impugned order quashed; petitioner to continue or be reinstated within 30 days, without back wages for the period not worked.

2025:CGHC:48378

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 2128 of 2021

¶6

1 - Damin Sahu W/o Yogesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 29 Years Resident Of Village And Post Karamtara, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

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

¶10

2 - Director Health Service Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Divisional Joint Director Health Service Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, advocate on behalf of Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy.G.A.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

19/09/2025

¶18

Following relief has been claimed in this writ petition - “i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order dated 16/03/2021 (Annexure P/1) and the petitioner may be allowed to continue service with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice.

¶19

¶20

ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

¶21

Facts which emerges from the writ petition are that an advertisement was issued for the post of Staff Nurse on 14/08/2020 and the petitioner applied for Bilaspur Division. The petitioner was having four years’ experience hence she was entitled for 12 marks because as per the advertisement, three marks was to be given for one year experience. But the number was not given and then she filed a writ petition in which the Hon’ble Court called for reply and granted interim protection to the petitioner for keeping one post vacant.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an advertisement was issued for appointment on the post of Staff Nurse on 17/08/2020 (Annexure P/2) and the petitioner applied for Bilaspur division. The petitioner was found eligible and vide order dated 08/03/2021, she was appointed on the said post at Community Health Centre, Akaltara, District – Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner joined her services vide Annexure P/7 dated 12/03/2021. Subsequently, the impugned order dated 16/03/2021 (Annexure P/1) was issued by which the selection of the petitioner was cancelled with immediate effect as the petitioner applied in two divisions which is in violation of clause 4 of the advertisement.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was earlier working in the Community Health Centre, Dongargarh on the same post on contract basis and she gave her resignation in order to join the present posting. He submits that before passing the impugned order, no notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner which is in violation of the terms and conditions of service rules. He further submits that even if the petitioner has applied for two divisions however, she was only selected for Bilaspur division. Therefore, it has not caused any prejudice to the respondents and therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) may be set aside.

¶24

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that according to clause 4 of the advertisement, candidates applying for the post of staff nurse are permitted to make their application only with respect to one division. As the petitioner has applied for Bilaspur and Raipur division, there is violation of clause 4 of the advertisement. Therefore, her cancellation of selection is in accordance with law.

¶25

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶27

On perusal of record, it appears that an advertisement was issued by the respondent / State for appointment of the Staff Nurse and according to clause No.4 of the advertisement, the aspiring candidate ought to have applied for only one division. According to the reply of the State, the petitioner made application for two different divisions i.e. Bilaspur and Raipur, however she was selected only in Bilaspur division and she was also given appointment. Later on, her selection was canceled vide Annexure P/1 and it does not appear that before passing such an order, any show cause notice was given to the petitioner. Even otherwise, the purport of the impugned order indicates that her selection has been cancelled whereas the selection of the petitioner was already acted upon by giving her joining. The purport of Annexure P/1 does not say that her appointment is cancelled. Even if the petitioner applied for two different divisions, but the fact that she was selected in one division, it will not cause any prejudice to the State if she is allowed to perform her duties. Apart from this, the petitioner was earlier working on the same post on contract basis and gave resignation there in order to join the present appointment.

¶28

This Court on 07/06/2021 directed that the post of the petitioner which has fallen vacant shall not be filled up without the leave of the Court till the next date of hearing. It appears that the interim order is still continuing.

¶29

It is not a case that in such a situation, such extreme steps are being taken by the State Government.Therefore, taking into consideration the facts circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside / quashed. If the petitioner is still working, she may be allowed to continue and if the petitioner has been removed, the respondents are directed to re-instate her in service within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the petitioner is not working, she will not be entitled to any backwages.

¶30

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶31

Deepti

¶32

Digitally
signed by
DEEPTI
DEEPTI HARIKUMAR
HARIKUMAR Date:
2025.09.25
10:56:45
+0530

Damin Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Damin Sahu 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

Lakhan Saktel Vs Central Bank of India

Prakash Narayan Shrivas Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Smt. Mamta Dwivedi Vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited

M/s Jindal Steel and Power Limited And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Suraj Kumar Vs Union of India

Amitap Shrivastav Vs Smt. Laxmi Shrivastav (Ramtake)