Manoj Kumar Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

1

2026:CGHC:15635

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 4988 of 2022

¶7

1 - Manoj Kumar Rathore S/o Shri Banshilal Rathore Aged About 46 Years Working As Ophthlmic Assistant Officer At P.H.C. Korbi (Pali), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Mishrilal Kashyap S/o Shri Chhatram Kashyap Aged About 50 Years Working As Ophthalmic Assistant Officer At P.H.C. Thathari (Jaijaipur), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3 - Harish Yadav S/o Shri Gularam Yadav Aged About 33 Years Working As Opthlamic Assistant Officer At P.H.C. Kerakachhar (Kartala),, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶10

4 - Usha Kahra W/o Shri Thanderam Yadav Aged About 36 Years Working As Opthlamic Assistant Officer At P.H.C. Bhilai Bazar (Katghora), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶11

5 - Manoj Mahant S/o Shri Dineshwar Mahant Aged About 36 Years Working As Opthlamic Assistant Officer At P.H.C. Kherwani (Kartala), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶12

6 - Gopalsharan Singh Tomar S/o Late Shri Jhakhraj Singh Tomar Aged About 43 Years Working As Opthlamic Assistant Officer At P.H.C. Nawagaw(Pendra), District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶13

7 - Jhul Singh Yadav Slo Shri Kanhaiyalal Yadav Aged About 44 Years Working As Opthlamic Assistant Officer At P.H.C. Kevchi (Gourela), District : GaurelaPendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Petitioner(s)

¶15

versus

¶16

2

¶17

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

¶18

2 - Director Office Of Director, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Indrawati Bhawan, Police Station And Post Rakhi Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

... Respondent(s)

¶20

For Petitioner(s)	: None in two rounds.
For State	: Mr. R.C. S. Deo, Panel Lawyer

¶21

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

06/04/2026

¶24

The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶25

“10.(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to suspend the recruitment process till the final decision of the committee constituted for granting preference to the contract employee of the Health Department, in the interest of justice.

¶26

(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to modify and extend the benefit of circular dated 07.12.2021 to all the contract employee who have served for Covid Control for more than 6 months and grant 10% bonus marks accordingly, in the interest of justice.

¶27

(iii) That, in the alternative this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant further age relaxation of 5 years on maximum age of 45 years to the contract employee already working since last 10 years, in the interest of justice.

¶28

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

¶29

Earlier, the petitioners were appointed to the post of Ophthalmic Assistant Officer in the year 2011 on a contractual basis, thereafter,

¶30

3

¶31

their contractual period was extended by the respondents from time to time. It is pleaded that the petitioners worked for more than 10 years, but their names were not considered for regularization. However, the respondents initiated a fresh recruitment process vide advertisement dated 15.06.2022 for 234 posts of Ophthalmic Assistant Officer.

¶32

It is further pleaded that since the petitioners have worked for more than 10 years, the respondent authorities may be directed to grant an additional age relaxation of 5 years.

¶33

Learned State counsel would submit that the petitioners have never challenged the Recruitment Rules under which age relaxation is to be granted. The advertisement was issued in the year 2022 for the post of Ophthalmic Assistant Officer and the selection process has already been completed; thus, the petition has rendered infructuous.

¶34

Heard.

¶35

It appears that the petitioners worked for about 10 years on the post of Ophthalmic Assistant Officer from 2011 to 2022. A fresh advertisement was issued for appointment to the said post. No interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners. It is informed that the recruitment process has also been concluded in the year 2022–23; however, the petitioners have not impleaded the selected candidates as respondents. Further, the petitioners have not challenged the Recruitment Rules providing for age relaxation.

¶36

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed .

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Nadim

Manoj Kumar Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akanksha Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sushila Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Anshumala Washnik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Geeta Yadav Vs Collector

M. S. Painkra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pranjal Kesharwani Vs Secretary