Khilendra Kumar Kar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

Digitally signed by YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date:2025.01.29 19:19:06 +0530

1

2025:CGHC:4478

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 459 of 2025

¶7

Khilendra Kumar Kar S/o Shri Hemant Kumar Kar Aged About 30 Years R/o- Mohgaon, Post Bhagat Deori, P.S.- Sankra, Tahsil Pithora District Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Durg District- Durg C.G.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. Govt. Advocate

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board

¶16

24.01.2025

¶17

1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents.

¶18

2. The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s):-

¶19

“10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the appointment on the post of Multipurpose Health Worker

¶20

2

¶21

(Male) in accordance with the provisions contained in the rules of 1989.

¶22

10.2 To kindly grant any other writ/writs, order/orders, relief/reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioners.”

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was seeking appointment on the basis of Rules for appointment on post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) and according to the relevant rules prevailing them for appointment of such post, the petitioner was holding requisite eligibility criteria. However in the advertisement issued on 04.05.2012 (Annexure P/2), two more conditions were included which is contrary to the Rules for appointment on post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male). He further submits that similarly situated persons had also filed writ petitions before this Court and this Court permitted them to make representation and the representation filed by many other persons have been considered and they have been even given appointment on the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male). However, the case of the petitioner was illegally not being considered and they have been declined of appointment.

¶24

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that after lapse of 12 years the case of the petitioner cannot considered. He further submits that the petitioner has been segregated from other similarly situated candidates and their representations were duly considered by the State Government even appointing them.

¶25

3

¶26

5. Be that as it may, at this stage this Court is of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of permitting the petitioner to file fresh representation along with copy of this order within 30 days to the concerned respondent authority ventilating his grievances as projected in the writ petition with all necessary documents and materials which would be necessary for determination of the same. In the event, such representation is filed, concerned respondent authority, after examining the case of petitioner in light of the Madhya Pradesh Public Health and Family Welfare Department NonMinisterial (Related to the Directorate of Health Services) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 1989 and the conditions mentioned in the advertisement issued in the Year-2012 (Annexure P/2), if the petitioner is found to be suitable and he fulfills other eligibility criteria and in case any vacancy is still in existence, the representation may be decided by the concerned respondent authority in accordance with law within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶27

6. With the above observation/direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶28

7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of this case.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶31

Yogesh

Khilendra Kumar Kar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khilendra Kumar Kar 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

Smt. Kaushalya Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamta Prasad Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lalaram Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Priylesh Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sulochana Sonari Vs State of Chhattisgarh