Dismissed

Gaukaran Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Sept 2026WPS/6212/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the methodology for preparing the merit list for the post of Rural Health Coordinator. The petitioner urged scaling of competitive examination marks to 85 before adding COVID-19 bonus marks. The court held the scaling requirement applied only to earlier qualification-based recruitment, not to the current competitive examination, and dismissed the pe

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to establish that marks in the competitive examination needed to be scaled to 85 before adding COVID-19 bonus marks.

Gaukaran Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010322432026

2026:CGHC:40632

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.09.17 16:08:10 +0530

¶7

WPS No. 6212 of 2026

¶8

(Order Reserved on 09/09/2026)

¶9

(Final Order Delivered on 17/09/2026)

¶10

(Final Order Uploaded on 17/09/2026)

¶11

Gaukaran Sahu S/o Shri Parmeshwar Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Mungway, Tahsil Nawagarh, Post Kunwa, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Petitioner(s)

¶13

Versus

¶14

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

¶15

2 - Commissioner Cum Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶16

3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Through Examination Controller, VYAPAM Bhawan, North Block Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶17

		Respondent(s)
	(Cause-title taken from CIS)
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate
For Resp/State	: Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Govt. Adv.
For Resp. No. 3	; Ms. Akanksha Singh, Adv. on behalf Singh, Adv.	of Mr. Avinash
For Intervener	: Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate

¶18

C A V Order

¶19

¶20

Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J.

¶21

By the present writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the manner in which the merit list is proposed to be prepared for recruitment to the post of Rural Health Coordinator (Male) pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure-P/1). The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to prepare the merit list in accordance with the notification dated 10.01.2023 and, consequently, to consider his candidature for appointment to the said post.

¶22

Facts:

¶23

(a) The recruitment in question was initiated pursuant to an advertisement dated 16.06.2025 for the post of Rural Health Coordinator (Male) in various districts. The petitioner applied for the said post and participated in the competitive examination conducted through the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) (henceforth ‘the Vyapam’). The supporting record indicates that the petitioner secured marks in the said examination and was shown as present and eligible.

¶24

(b) The recruitment is stated to be governed by the Chhattisgarh Health and Family Welfare Department, Non-Ministerial Paramedical and Nursing (Directorate Health Services) Class III Service Recruitment Rules, 2013 , as amended by the Rules of 2020 (for short ‘the Rules ’). The petitioner relies upon Rule 6(5) of the said Rules, which provides, inter alia , that the Government may prescribe criteria for selection on the basis of merit for posts to be filled through direct recruitment and that the Selection Committee may adopt such criteria or other reasonable

¶25

¶26

criteria with the consent of the Government.

¶27

(c) The controversy has its genesis in a departmental order/ notification dated 10.01.2023. As reflected from the record, the said order contemplated an assessment structure under which 85 marks were attributable to educational qualification and a maximum of 15 marks towards experience, with the aggregate marks not exceeding 100. The same departmental scheme also contemplated grant of bonus marks to eligible temporary/contractual health workers who had rendered services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thereafter, in relation to the recruitment in question, the respondent authorities issued a notice dated 13.01.2026, providing for 10 bonus marks to temporary health employees who had worked during the COVID period for a period of six months. The petitioner relies upon the aforesaid development to contend that the benefit of the earlier departmental scheme was incorporated into the present recruitment.

¶28

(d) The grievance of the petitioner is that, while preparing the provisional merit list, the respondents have taken the marks actually obtained by the candidates in the Vyapam examination and have also taken into consideration the COVID-19 bonus marks, instead of first restricting/scaling the marks obtained in the Vyapam examination to 85 marks and thereafter adding the admissible experience/bonus marks. The petitioner claims to have submitted an objection against the provisional merit list. According to him, however, no effective action was taken on the said objection.

¶29

¶30

(e) The petitioner has also placed reliance upon the order dated 01.05.2026 passed by this Court in WPS No. 635/2026, Tileshwar Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and connected matters. According to the petitioner, the said order dealt with the entitlement of contractual health workers who had rendered services during the COVID-19 pandemic to additional marks towards such service/experience. During the pendency of the matter, the Directorate of Health Services issued a further clarificatory notification dated 25.08.2026, which has been placed on record by the respondents. The said clarification refers to the earlier scheme dated 10.01.2023 and separately explains the manner in which merit is to be determined in the present recruitment. According to the clarification, the present recruitment is being conducted pursuant to the advertisement providing for a Vyapam competitive examination and the merit list is to be prepared by taking the marks actually obtained in the Vyapam examination and adding the admissible 10 bonus marks in respect of services performed during COVID-19.

¶31

Submissions:-

¶32

(I) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondents are bound by the recruitment framework contained in the Rules of 2013, as amended in 2020, and particularly by the criteria which had already been prescribed by the competent authority. According to learned counsel, Rule 6 (5) permits prescription of criteria for selection on the basis of merit, but the same cannot be altered arbitrarily after the selection process has commenced. It is submitted

¶33

¶34

that the departmental notification dated 10.01.2023 clearly prescribed a scheme of 85 marks towards educational qualification and 15 marks towards experience, subject to the aggregate not exceeding 100 marks. According to learned counsel, the said methodology governs the preparation of the merit list and the respondents could not depart from it while processing the present recruitment.

¶35

(II) Learned counsel would further submit that the respondents themselves have granted the benefit of 10 bonus marks in respect of service rendered during COVID-19 Pandemic in the present recruitment pursuant to the aforesaid departmental scheme. Once the respondents have incorporated one part of the scheme in the present recruitment, they cannot ignore the remaining part of the same scheme, particularly the prescription concerning the manner in which merit is to be assessed. It is further submitted that the advertisement dated 16.06.2025 stated that the merit list would be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the Vyapam examination, but subsequently the respondents introduced the COVID-19 bonus marks. According to learned counsel, the addition of such bonus marks necessarily has to be made within the framework of the 100-mark structure contemplated under the notification dated 10.01.2023.

¶36

(III) Learned counsel would contend that, consequently, the marks obtained in the Vyapam examination ought to be appropriately restricted/scaled to 85 marks, and thereafter the admissible experience/bonus marks should be added, subject to the maximum of

¶37

¶38

100 marks. It is submitted that by taking the full marks obtained in the Vyapam examination and thereafter adding the COVID-19 bonus marks, the respondents have effectively adopted a different methodology which materially affects the inter se merit of the candidates.

¶39

(IV) Learned counsel further submits that the respondents had issued a subsequent notice dated 15.06.2026 indicating that the procedure prescribed under the notification dated 10.01.2023 would be followed. According to the petitioner, despite such stipulation, the actual provisional merit list has been prepared by taking the full marks secured in the Vyapam examination instead of applying the 85-mark component. Learned counsel has also relied upon the order dated 01.05.2026 passed in WPS No. 635/2026 and connected matters. It is submitted that this Court had directed the respondent authorities to consider the claim of contractual health workers who had worked in Government health institutions/centres during the COVID-19 pandemic for grant of additional marks towards such experience. According to learned counsel, the said order has to be read along with the departmental circular dated 10.01.2023 and, therefore, the respondents were required to prepare the merit list in accordance with the said 85:15 methodology.

¶40

(V) It is lastly submitted that the petitioner had raised an objection against the provisional merit list, but the same has not been properly considered. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the respondents be directed to prepare the merit list afresh in accordance with the notification dated 10.01.2023 and thereafter consider the petitioner for

¶41

¶42

appointment to the post of Rural Health Coordinator (Male).

¶43

( A) Per contra, learned State counsel would oppose the writ petition and submit that the entire challenge proceeds upon an erroneous interpretation of the departmental order dated 10.01.2023. It is submitted that the present recruitment is materially different from the recruitment exercise in the context of which the earlier 85:15 methodology had been formulated.

¶44

(B) Learned State counsel submits that the present recruitment was initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.06.2025 and is being conducted through a competitive examination by Vyapam in accordance with the Recruitment Rules of 2013, as amended in 2020. The petitioner himself participated in the said competitive examination. According to the State, therefore, the marks secured in the competitive examination constitute the basis for determination of merit in the present selection. It is not disputed by the respondents that the departmental order dated 10.01.2023 contemplated 85 marks towards educational qualification and a maximum of 15 marks towards experience/10 bonus marks in respect of service rendered during COVID-19, with the aggregate not exceeding 100 marks. However, learned State counsel submits that the said formula cannot be read in isolation or mechanically transplanted into the present recruitment.

¶45

(C) According to learned State counsel, the earlier methodology was based upon assessment of educational qualification and experience, whereas the present recruitment has been structured around a

¶46

¶47

competitive examination conducted through Vyapam. The expression “85 marks towards educational qualification”, therefore, cannot be converted into a direction that marks secured in a competitive examination must necessarily be scaled down to 85 marks.

¶48

(D) Learned State counsel would further submit that the order dated 01.05.2026 passed in WPS No. 635/2026 and connected matters did not prescribe any such scaling mechanism. According to the respondents, the said proceedings principally concerned the entitlement of contractual health workers who had rendered services during the COVID-19 pandemic to the benefit of additional marks towards such experience. The direction issued by this Court was confined to consideration of the claim for such additional marks and did not direct that marks obtained in the Vyapam examination should be reduced to an 85 mark component. Learned State counsel submits that, pursuant to the aforesaid order and to remove any ambiguity concerning the manner in which the COVID19 benefit was to be incorporated into the present recruitment, the Directorate of Health Services issued the clarification dated 25.08.2026.

¶49

(E) According to learned counsel, the said clarification expressly distinguishes the earlier 85:15 assessment scheme from the present recruitment. While Clause (2) refers to the earlier methodology of 85 marks towards educational qualification and 15 marks towards experience/bonus, Clause (3) specifically deals with the present recruitment and records that the same is being conducted under the Recruitment Rules, 2013, as amended in 2020, pursuant to an

¶50

¶51

advertisement providing for a Vyapam competitive examination. It is submitted that the clarification further provides that the present recruitment incorporates the admissible 10 COVID-19 bonus marks, whereas other experience marks have not been included in the present recruitment. Consequently, the merit list is to be prepared by taking the marks actually obtained by the candidate in the Vyapam examination and adding the admissible 10 COVID-19 bonus marks.

¶52

(F) Learned State counsel would therefore submit that the petitioner's contention that the Vyapam marks must first be restricted to 85 marks is directly contrary to the clarification dated 25.08.2026. Such an interpretation, according to the respondents, would amount to importing one part of the earlier assessment methodology into a recruitment which has been structured upon a competitive examination. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner cannot selectively rely upon the departmental order dated 10.01.2023 and the order dated 01.05.2026 passed by this Court in WPS No.635/2026 and other connected matters for claiming the benefit of COVID-19 bonus marks, while simultaneously ignoring the subsequent clarification which explains the manner in which the said benefit is to be incorporated in the present selection. It is also submitted that the ceiling of 100 marks under the earlier scheme cannot be construed as requiring the marks obtained in the competitive examination conducted by the Vyapam to be restricted to 85 marks. According to the respondents, the ceiling of 100 marks formed part of the earlier 85:15 assessment structure and cannot automatically operate as a ceiling upon marks secured in a competitive

¶53

¶54

examination unless such scaling is expressly prescribed by the governing advertisement, Rules or selection criteria.

¶55

(G) Learned State counsel would lastly submit that mere inclusion of a candidate's name in a provisional merit list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. Unless the petitioner ultimately falls within the zone of selection in the final merit list and fulfils all requisite eligibility conditions, no positive direction for appointment can be issued in his favour. The State accordingly seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

¶56

(a) Learned counsel appearing for the intervener would submit that the intervener is a participating candidate who has been placed higher than the petitioner in the merit list and, therefore, has a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the present proceedings. It is submitted that any direction for re-computation of merit in the manner sought by the petitioner would directly affect the intervener's position in the merit list and his prospects of selection.

¶57

(b) Learned counsel for the intervener would further submit that the petitioner had himself been awarded the benefit of 10 COVID-19 bonus marks and, when the merit list was initially published, he did not raise any grievance with regard to the manner in which the merit list had been prepared. According to the intervener, the present challenge has been raised only after the subsequent revision of the merit list, and essentially proceeds from the petitioner's apprehension that his position in the selection may be adversely affected.

¶58

¶59

¶60

communication dated 15.06.2026 has also been misconstrued by the petitioner. According to the intervener, the said communication was issued pursuant to the order dated 01.05.2026 passed in WPS No. 635/2026 and connected matters, for the limited purpose of extending the benefit of 10 COVID-19 bonus marks to eligible temporary /contractual health workers who had rendered the requisite period of service during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is submitted that the said communication nowhere provides that the marks obtained in the written competitive examination conducted by Vyapam are to be scaled down to 85 marks or that the merit list is to be re-determined in the manner suggested by the petitioner.

¶61

(d) Learned counsel for the intervener would further submit that the departmental order dated 10.01.2023 operated in a different selection framework, wherein merit was assessed on the basis of educational/technical qualification and experience, with 85 marks attributable to qualification and up to 15 marks towards experience, subject to the aggregate not exceeding 100 marks. The present recruitment, on the other hand, was conducted through a competitive written examination by Vyapam. According to the intervener, the earlier 85:15 methodology cannot, therefore, be imported into the present selection by treating the marks obtained in the competitive examination as an 85-mark component.

¶62

(e) Learned counsel would also submit that the methodology proposed by the petitioner would lead to an anomalous result and would

¶63

¶64

have the effect of disturbing inter se merit. By way of illustration, it is submitted that a candidate securing 57.75 marks in the written examination, upon multiplication by 0.85 (57.75 x 85/100 = 49.08) and addition of 10 bonus marks, would secure 59.08 marks, whereas a candidate securing 69.00 (69 x 85/100) marks in the written examination, without the bonus, would stand at 58.65 marks. According to the intervener, such a result would permit a candidate securing substantially lower marks in the competitive examination to overtake a candidate securing higher marks therein, merely by reason of the proposed mathematical scaling, and would therefore be arbitrary and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the intervener would lastly submit that the respondents have already implemented the benefit directed to be extended under the order dated 01.05.2026 and have thereafter published the revised merit list. The petitioner has no vested right to have the merit list prepared by adopting a methodology which was neither prescribed in the advertisement nor specifically directed by this Court. The intervener, therefore, seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

¶65

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

¶66

Analysis:

¶67

The principal question that arises for consideration is whether, in the recruitment in question, the assessment methodology contemplated under the departmental order dated 10.01.2023, providing for 85 marks

¶68

¶69

towards educational/technical qualification and 15 marks towards experience/10 COVID-19 bonus marks, subject to the aggregate not exceeding 100 marks, requires the marks obtained in the Vyapam competitive examination to be first scaled to 85 marks and the admissible COVID-19 bonus marks to be added thereafter.

¶70

The recruitment to the post of Rural Health Coordinator (Male) was initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.06.2025 and the selection was to be conducted through a competitive examination by Vyapam. The petitioner participated in the said examination and secured 57.75 marks in the written competitive examination. He was thereafter awarded 10 COVID-19 bonus marks, taking his aggregate to 67.75 marks.

¶71

It is not in dispute that the departmental order dated 10.01.2023 contemplated an assessment structure under which 85 marks were attributable towards educational/technical qualification and a maximum of 15 marks towards experience, with the aggregate not exceeding 100 marks. The said scheme also contemplated, in the alternative, grant of 10 bonus marks to eligible temporary/contractual health workers who had rendered services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

¶72

The question, however, is whether the aforesaid assessment methodology, which contemplated separate components of educational qualification and experience, can be applied in its entirety to the present recruitment, where merit is determined primarily on the basis of marks secured in a competitive examination conducted through Vyapam.

¶73

¶74

In this regard, it is significant that neither the advertisement dated 16.06.2025 nor the applicable Recruitment Rules nor any other recruitment document placed on record specifically prescribes that the marks obtained in the Vyapam competitive examination are required to be converted or scaled to an 85-mark component. The mere reference to 85 marks towards educational/technical qualification in the departmental order dated 10.01.2023 cannot, by itself, be construed as prescribing an invariable ceiling of 85 marks upon the marks obtained by a candidate in a subsequent competitive examination.

¶75

The communication dated 15.06.2026, relied upon by the petitioner, does not alter the position. Though the said communication refers to the departmental order dated 10.01.2023 and the earlier 85:15 methodology, it was issued in the context of extending the benefit of 10 COVID-19 bonus marks to eligible temporary health workers. Significantly, the said communication does not prescribe any formula for converting or scaling the marks obtained in the Vyapam examination to 85 marks.

¶76

The petitioner's contention, in substance, requires this Court to combine the earlier 85:15 assessment mechanism with the Vyapam based competitive examination by treating the marks obtained in the latter as an 85 mark component. Such conversion would necessarily require a specific prescription or mathematical formula by the competent authority. In the absence of any such prescription in the governing recruitment framework, this Court cannot introduce a method of assessment which has not been prescribed by the competent authority.

¶77

¶78

The reliance placed upon the order dated 01.05.2026 passed by this Court in Tileshwar Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and connected matters also does not advance the petitioner's case. The proceedings therein concerned the entitlement of eligible contractual health workers who had rendered services during the COVID-19 pandemic to additional marks towards such service/experience. The direction issued therein required the respondents to consider the claim of eligible contractual health workers and take appropriate action in terms of the departmental circular dated 10.01.2023. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the said order directed the respondents to scale or reduce the marks obtained in the Vyapam competitive examination to 85 marks.

¶79

A direction to extend an admissible benefit towards COVID-19 service or experience cannot, in the absence of anything further, be construed as a direction prescribing the entire methodology for determination of inter se merit in a competitive examination. The entitlement to an additional benefit and the methodology for determining inter se merit are distinct matters.

¶80

The subsequent clarification dated 25.08.2026 assumes significance in this context. While taking note of the earlier departmental methodology of 85 marks towards educational qualification and 15/10 marks towards experience/bonus, the clarification specifically deals with the present recruitment and records that the same is being conducted under the Recruitment Rules, 2013, as amended in 2020, pursuant to an advertisement providing for a competitive examination through Vyapam.

¶81

¶82

It further records that the present recruitment incorporates the admissible 10 COVID-19 bonus marks, whereas other experience marks have not been included, and provides for preparation of the merit list by taking the marks actually secured in the Vyapam examination and adding the admissible COVID-19 bonus marks.

¶83

Thus, the respondents have not disputed the existence or applicability of the COVID-19 bonus benefit. What is not established, however, is the petitioner's further proposition that, along with such benefit, the marks secured in the Vyapam examination were also required to be scaled to 85 marks. The latter proposition finds no specific support in the advertisement, the Recruitment Rules, the communication dated 15.06.2026, or the order dated 01.05.2026 relied upon by the petitioner. In absence of any corresponding provision governing the present Vyapam based competitive examination, the said ceiling cannot, by itself, be converted into a requirement that the marks actually obtained in the competitive examination must first be reduced to 85 marks.

¶84

The illustration relied upon by learned counsel for the intervener also indicates the consequence of adopting such an unprescribed formula. A candidate securing 57.75 marks in the written examination, upon scaling by 0.85 and addition of 10 bonus marks, would secure 59.0875 marks, i.e. approximately 59.09 marks, whereas a candidate securing 69.00 marks in the written examination, without the bonus, would secure 58.65 marks. The illustration is not determinative of the legality of the selection; it nevertheless demonstrates that the formula suggested by the

¶85

¶86

petitioner would constitute a distinct method of assessment and not merely an arithmetical adjustment of the existing merit. Such a method could be adopted by the competent authority if specifically prescribed under the applicable recruitment framework. In the absence of such prescription, however, the Court cannot itself devise or introduce a mathematical formula for determining the inter-se merit of candidates.

¶87

The submission of learned counsel for the intervener that the petitioner had already availed the benefit of 10 COVID-19 bonus marks and had not objected to the methodology at the relevant stage has also been considered. However, the dismissal of the present petition does not rest upon such conduct of the petitioner. The principal question remains whether the governing recruitment framework itself requires the marks obtained in the Vyapam examination to be scaled to 85 marks. As noticed above, no such prescription has been demonstrated before this Court. It is also not in dispute that the prescription of method of marking 85% towards educational qualification and 15/10 marks towards experience/bonus was when the recruitment was based “on completely merit of the candidates based on qualification and experience”, whereas, in the present case, recruitment process is based purely on “competitive examination” through Vyapam.

¶88

The contention that the clarification dated 25.08.2026 amounts to a change in the criteria after commencement of the selection process also cannot be accepted. The present recruitment was, from its inception, structured around a competitive examination through Vyapam. The

¶89

¶90

subsequent clarification did not substitute the mode of selection or alter the competitive examination already conducted. It merely clarified the manner in which the admissible COVID-19 bonus marks were to be incorporated with the marks obtained in the competitive examination.

¶91

The petitioner participated in the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.06.2025, under which selection was to be made through a competitive examination conducted by Vyapam. Having regard to the absence of any provision prescribing subsequent scaling of such marks to 85, the petitioner cannot claim such scaling merely by relying upon the 85-mark component contained in an earlier departmental assessment scheme.

¶92

The petitioner's grievance with regard to the provisional merit list, therefore, proceeds on the premise that the 85-mark component contained in the departmental order dated 10.01.2023 operates as a ceiling upon the marks obtained in the present Vyapam examination. Such premise is not borne out from the material placed before this Court.

¶93

The record shows that the petitioner secured 57.75 marks in the written competitive examination and was awarded 10 COVID-19 bonus marks, taking his aggregate to 67.75 marks. This Court is not required, in the present proceedings, to undertake a comparative assessment of the marks secured by the petitioner and other candidates or to determine his ultimate position in the final merit list. The issue before this Court is confined to the legality of the methodology adopted for preparation of the merit list.

¶94

¶95

On an overall consideration of the advertisement dated 16.06.2025, the departmental order dated 10.01.2023, the communication dated 15.06.2026, the order dated 01.05.2026 passed in Tileshwar Kumar Sahu (supra) and connected matters, and the clarification dated 25.08.2026, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to establish that the marks obtained in the Vyapam competitive examination were required to be first scaled to 85 marks before addition of the admissible COVID-19 bonus marks.

¶96

Consequently, no material has been placed before this Court to establish that the respondents, in adopting the methodology reflected in the clarification dated 25.08.2026, have acted contrary to the applicable Recruitment Rules or in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The alleged violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is, therefore, not made out. The relief sought by the petitioner for preparation of the merit list by first scaling the marks obtained in the Vyapam examination to 85 marks and thereafter adding the COVID-19 bonus marks cannot, therefore, be granted.

¶97

The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶98

Sd/-

¶99

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶100

Rahul

Gaukaran Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaukaran Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases