Sanjay Kumar Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI

¶3

2026:CGHC:17133

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 9724 of 2023

¶7

1 - Sanjay Kumar Dewangan S/o Vishnuprasad Dewangan, Aged About 44 Years Primary Health Center Belgahna, Belgahna, Block Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Vishnu Ram Yadav S/o Terasram Yadav, Aged About 43 Years Eye Assistant Officer (Contract), Primary Health Center Deverghata, Devarghat, Block Dhabhara, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

3 - Harish Yadav S/o Shri Gulamram Yadav, Aged About 35 Years Eye Assistant Officer (Contract), Primary Health Center Kerakachar, Kerakachar, Block Kartala, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶10

4 - Vinod Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Ramsahay Sahu, Aged About 40 Years Eye Assistant Officer (Contract), Primary Health Center Khamhariya, Khamhariya, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

5 - Jhul Singh Yadav S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Yadav Aged About 45 Years Eye Assistant Officer (Contract), Primary Health Center Kenvachi, Kenvachi, Block Gourela, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Petitioner(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Public Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶15

2

¶16

2 - Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

3 - Joint Director, Office Of Divisional Joint Director Health Services, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶19

5 - Thaneshwar Kumar, S/o Shri Vigyan Kumar, Primary Health Center Belkhori Community Health Center Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.

¶20

6 - Prabhuram Sahu, S/o Keshav Ram Sahu Primary Health Centre, Kotmi, Community Health Centre Gourela, District : Gaurela-PendraMarwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶21

7 - Naresh Kumar S/o Mohan Lal Primary Health Centre, Bhilaibazaar, Community Health Centre Patari, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶22

8 - Parmeshwar Lal Sahu S/o Gitaram, Sahu, Primary Health Centre Laariparni, Community Health Centre Lailunga, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶23

9 - Rajendra Kumar S/o Bouna Ram, Primary Health Centre Katari Nagoi, Community Health Centre Podi Uproda, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶24

... Respondent(s)

¶25

(Cause Title is taken from CIS System)

¶26

For Petitioner	: Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer
For Resp. No. 6 & 7	: Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate
For Resp. No. 9	: Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate

¶27

3

¶28

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶29

Order on Board

¶30

15/04/2026

¶31

The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following

¶32

reliefs:

¶33

10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writ, direction/directions, order/orders and the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioners for allotment of 10 bonus marks and shall further be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of eye assistant officers after preparing fresh merit/ select list.

¶34

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writ, direction/directions, order/orders and the impugned letter dated 07/11/2023 (Annexure P/1) be set aside and quashed and the respondents be directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and relevant rules/ circulars in compliance of the order dated 09/10/2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in WPS no. 8081/2023.

¶35

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writ, direction/directions, order/orders and impugned order dated 06/10/2023 (Annexure P/2) be set aside and quashed.

¶36

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s),

¶37

4

¶38

which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

¶39

Facts of the case, as emerging from the writ petition, are that the petitioners, who are working as Eye Assistant Officers on a contractual basis under the Public Health and Family Welfare Department, have approached this Court challenging the arbitrary action and inaction of the respondent authorities. The grievance of the petitioners arises from the fact that despite a specific direction issued by this Court on 09.10.2023 in WPS No. 8081 of 2023, the respondents have failed to consider and decide their representation in accordance with law. It is contended that no reasoned and speaking order has been passed, nor has any analysis of the applicable rules, circulars, or legal provisions been undertaken. Instead, by the impugned communication dated 07.11.2023, the respondents have summarily stated that the recruitment process was governed by the terms of the advertisement, without addressing the specific claims raised by the petitioners. The factual matrix reveals that an advertisement dated 08.06.2022 was issued by the Office of the Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Bilaspur, for filling up various posts, including that of Eye Assistant Officers. Subsequently, the said advertisement was amended on 08.05.2023. As per the original advertisement, a total of 49 posts of Eye Assistant Officers were notified, out of which 22 posts (including 14 for males) were

¶40

5

¶41

earmarked for the unreserved category, while 07 posts (including 5 for males) were reserved for candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes category. The petitioners belong to the OBC category and were applicants pursuant to the said advertisement. It is the case of the petitioners that they had rendered valuable services as Eye Assistant Officers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the same is duly substantiated by certificates and orders issued by the Office of the Chief Medical and Health Officer. Further, various circulars and instructions were issued by the Additional Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department and the Director, Health Services, from time to time, recognizing and granting benefits to personnel who had rendered services during the COVID-19 period. The petitioners submit that in a similar recruitment process for the post of Staff Nurse in District Kanker, an additional benefit of 10 bonus marks was granted to candidates who had rendered services during the COVID-19 period, and such benefit was duly reflected in the final merit list. Drawing parity from the said process, the petitioners submitted representations dated 24.07.2023 and 25.08.2023 before the competent authority, seeking grant of 10 bonus marks for their COVID-19 service. Initially, the petitioners approached this Court in WPS No. 7425 of 2023, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition, if so required. Thereafter, in a subsequent round of litigation being WPS No. 8081 of 2023, this Court, by order

¶42

6

¶43

dated 09.10.2023, granted liberty to the petitioners to submit a fresh representation and directed the respondent authorities to consider and decide the same within a stipulated period in accordance with law and relevant rules/circulars. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the petitioners submitted a detailed representation dated 20.10.2023, specifically claiming grant of 10 bonus marks on account of their services during the COVID-19 period. However, the respondents, by the impugned letter dated 07.11.2023, failed to consider the claim of the petitioners in its proper perspective and did not assign any cogent reasons for denial of the said benefit. It is further averred that various lists were prepared by the respondents during the recruitment process, including the list of uploaded applications, final merit list, wait list, and the posting order list. As per the final merit list, the marks secured by the petitioners were such that, had 10 bonus marks been awarded to them for their COVID-19 service, they would have secured higher merit positions and would have fallen within the zone of selection. A comparative analysis of marks demonstrates that candidates who have been selected and issued posting orders in both the OBC and unreserved categories have secured marks lower than or comparable to the petitioners’ enhanced marks (after adding the claimed bonus), thereby establishing that the petitioners were entitled to be considered for appointment. Accordingly, the petitioners contend that denial of

¶44

7

¶45

10 bonus marks for COVID-19 service is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, particularly when similarly situated candidates in another recruitment process have been extended such benefit.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action and inaction on the part of the respondent authorities are wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory. It is contended that despite the petitioners being similarly situated and duly eligible, they have been unjustly deprived of their right to be fairly considered for inclusion in the final posting order, whereas other candidates have been granted such consideration. It is further submitted that the impugned communication dated 07.11.2023 is cryptic and non-speaking, as it fails to assign any reasons whatsoever for rejection of the petitioners’ claim. This, according to learned counsel, is in clear violation of the directions issued by this Court in its earlier order dated 09.10.2023 passed in WPS No. 8081 of 2023, wherein the respondents were specifically directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners in accordance with law and relevant rules/circulars. The impugned action, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further contends that the impugned action is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioners have been subjected to hostile discrimination without any reasonable basis. It is argued

¶47

8

¶48

that the petitioners, having rendered services during the COVID19 pandemic, are equally entitled to grant of 10 bonus marks, which ought to have been considered while preparing the final merit list. Invoking the principle of parity, it is submitted that in a similar recruitment process for the post of Staff Nurse in the Kanker region, candidates were granted 10 bonus marks for rendering services during the COVID-19 period, and the same benefit has been denied to the present petitioners without any justification. Such differential treatment, it is argued, is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent authorities failed in their duty to properly verify the records and service details of the petitioners, and instead of undertaking a fair assessment, arbitrarily denied them the benefit of bonus marks. It is contended that had the petitioners been granted the said 10 bonus marks, their names would have necessarily found place in the final selection list and consequent posting order, as their merit position would have been higher than several selected candidates. It is further argued that the petitioners were not only denied the benefit of bonus marks but were also excluded from the final posting order without any justification. The grievances raised by them in their representations have not been addressed, and no reasoned decision has been taken in compliance with the earlier directions of this Court. This renders the entire action of the respondents

¶49

9

¶50

illegal and unsustainable. Learned counsel emphasizes that while the petitioners, who applied for the post of Eye Assistant Officers in Bilaspur Division, were denied 10 bonus marks for COVID duty, similarly situated candidates in the Kanker region were granted such benefit in the recruitment for Staff Nurses. This discriminatory approach clearly reflects arbitrariness and mala fide exercise of power on the part of the respondents. It is also contended that respondent Nos. 5 to 9 have been appointed in the OBC category pursuant to the posting order dated 06.10.2023, despite the fact that the petitioners, on proper allocation of marks, would have ranked higher in merit. Therefore, the said posting order is liable to be quashed and set aside, as it has resulted in denial of rightful consideration to the petitioners. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the comparative analysis of marks to demonstrate that, had 10 bonus marks been awarded to the petitioners for COVID duty, all five petitioners would have secured higher merit than several selected candidates, including those in the OBC category. It is specifically pointed out that even the top candidate in the OBC category secured 65.74 marks, and each of the petitioners, upon addition of 10 bonus marks, would have surpassed or been well within the zone of selection for the available posts. It is further submitted that although the petitioners have been granted 15 marks towards experience in terms of Clause 15(b) of the advertisement (which provides 3

¶51

10

¶52

marks per completed year, subject to a maximum of 5 years), they have been denied the benefit of 10 bonus marks contemplated under Clause 15(c) for COVID duty. Learned counsel argues that the scheme of awarding marks itself is arbitrary, as it disproportionately grants substantial benefit for a shorter duration of service while denying similar benefit to experienced candidates like the petitioners, thereby resulting in manifest injustice. In light of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prays that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant 10 bonus marks to the petitioners for their COVID service, prepare a fresh merit/select list accordingly, and consider the petitioners for appointment to the post of Eye Assistant Officers. It is further prayed that the impugned letter dated 07.11.2023 and the posting order dated 06.10.2023 be quashed, and the respondents be directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and applicable rules/circulars.

¶53

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioners are not entitled to grant of 10 bonus marks for the services allegedly rendered during the COVID-19 period, as the same were not found to be in consonance with the applicable terms and conditions of the advertisement governing the recruitment process. It is contended that the recruitment was conducted strictly in accordance with the advertisement dated 08.06.2022 as amended on 08.05.2023, and the merit list has been prepared on

¶54

11

¶55

the basis of criteria prescribed therein. Learned State counsel further submits that the benefit of bonus marks is not automatic and is subject to fulfillment of the conditions stipulated under Clause 15(C) of the advertisement as well as the relevant policy/circulars issued by the State Government. It is also submitted that the impugned letter dated 07.11.2023 has been issued in response to the representation submitted by the petitioners and reflects the stand of the department that the recruitment process was carried out in accordance with the terms of the advertisement. It is argued that merely because the petitioners are dissatisfied with the outcome, the same cannot be a ground to interfere with the selection process. It is also submitted that the appointments pursuant to the posting order dated 06.10.2023 have already been made and the selected candidates have joined their respective posts. Interference at this stage would adversely affect the settled rights of third parties and disturb the entire selection process. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed.

¶56

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

¶57

From a careful consideration of the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners had rendered services during the COVID-19 period and have placed on record certificates issued by the competent authority in support thereof. It is also not

¶58

12

¶59

in dispute that Clause 15(C) of the amended advertisement dated 08.05.2023 provides for grant of 10 bonus marks to candidates who have rendered services during the COVID-19 pandemic for a minimum prescribed period in a Government Health Institution. This Court finds that the issue involved in the present case is substantially similar to the one already considered by this Court in an earlier matter, wherein it has been categorically held that the benefit of bonus marks is admissible even in respect of temporary or contractual services, provided the candidate fulfills the prescribed condition regarding duration of service during the COVID-19 period.

¶60

The very object of granting such bonus marks is to recognize and incentivize the contribution of health workers during the unprecedented pandemic situation. In the present case, the impugned communication dated 07.11.2023 does not reflect any consideration of the petitioners’ claim in the light of the applicable rules, circulars, or the conditions stipulated in Clause 15(C) of the advertisement. The said communication is conspicuously silent on the eligibility of the petitioners and does not assign any reasons for denial of bonus marks. Such an order, being non-speaking and bereft of reasons, is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the specific directions issued by this Court in its earlier order dated 09.10.2023 passed in WPS No. 8081 of 2023.

¶61

13

¶62

The contention of the respondent-State that the petitioners are not entitled to bonus marks merely on account of the nature of their engagement cannot be accepted, particularly in view of the fact that the relevant clause in the advertisement does not make any distinction between permanent, contractual, or temporary employees. Once the petitioners have demonstrated that they have rendered the requisite period of service during the COVID19 pandemic and have produced certificates to that effect, denial of such benefit amounts to arbitrary exclusion. Although the State has attempted to distinguish the said recruitment, no cogent justification has been placed on record for adopting a different yardstick in the present case.

¶63

In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioners for grant of 10 bonus marks for services rendered during the COVID-19 period deserves to be reconsidered in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned letter dated 07.11.2023 is hereby set aside .

¶64

The respondents are directed to reconsider the candidature of the petitioners for grant of 10 bonus marks in terms of Clause 15(C) of the amended advertisement dated 08.05.2023 and the relevant policy/circulars governing the field. Upon such reconsideration, the respondents shall rework the merit position of the petitioners. In the event the petitioners are found to fall within the zone of selection upon such recalculation, appropriate consequential

¶65

14

¶66

benefits shall be extended to them in accordance with law. However, it is clarified that such exercise shall be undertaken without unsettling the appointments already made, unless it becomes necessary in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶67

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the inter se merit of the candidates, and all issues are left open to be considered by the competent authority.

¶68

The writ petition stands partly allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶71

Shayna

Sanjay Kumar Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Dewangan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Nag Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkhilawan Vs the Board of Revenue

Khushbu Devangan Vs Principal Judge, Family Court

Rupnarayan (Died Through Lrs) Vs Manoj Kumar Agrawal

Radhey Shyam Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh