Sohan Lal Kumbhkar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 4453 of 2020

1. Sohan Lal Kumbhkar, S/o Shri Thanu Ram Kumbhkar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village And Post Pandhi, Police Station Sipat, Tahsil Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare And Medical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Director, Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, IIIrd Floor, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ----- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For State :

Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Addl. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 17.11.2020

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the list that was published by the respondent no. 3 on 13.10.2020 (Annexure P-1) for Bilaspur Division for recruitment of staff nurse as the said list was published pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.08.2020.

2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the list was published by the respondent has the name of large number of candidates who do not have the minimum qualification that was prescribed as per the advertisement. And in the process, the students/candidates who fulfilled the qualification either have been left

-2out or have been placed in the waiting list.

3. At this juncture, learned Advocate General submits that on the issuance of the list dated 13.10.2020 objections were called from all quarters and the petitioner herein also has submitted his objection and immediately thereafter he has rushed to the High Court. According to the Additional Advocate General, since his objections are still to be considered, the same would be decided in-accordance-with the rules governing the field, at the earliest.

4. Given the said submission by the Additional Advocate General, the writ petition stands disposed off, directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 to ensure that the objections that the petitioner and similarly placed person have filed are considered objectively and an appropriate decision is taken before finalization of the list of selected candidates.

5. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rahul