Tej Prakash v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS NO. 192 OF 2021 Tej Prakash, S/o Shri Awadh Ram, aged about 27 years, working on the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor (Contract), Community Health Center, Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (CG) ... Petitioner versus 1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Naya Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 2.

Director, Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, IIIrd Floor, Naya Raipur (CG) 3.

Chief Medical & Health Officer, Balod, District Balod (CG) ... Respondents For Petitioner :

Ms. K. Radhika, Advocate.

For Respondents :

Mr. Rahul Jha, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board /02/2021 1.

The defaults pointed out by the Registry of this Court in the instant case stand ignored as of now.

2.

Heard the matter finally on admission stage with the consent of learned Counsels appearing for their respective parties. 3.

The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is only to the extent whether the Petitioner has been rightly not granted the marks for the experience that he has, while scrutinising his credentials for appointment to the post of Rural Health Organizer (Male).

4.

Respondents had issued an Advertisement for filling up of regular vacancy for the post of Rural Health Organizer (Male), pursuant to which the Petitioner submitted his online application form at District Balod under the OBC category where total 15 posts were advertised out of which two posts were reserved for the OBC category candidates. Petitioner submitted his application along with experience certificate of working on contract basis on the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor since 18.5.2016 onwards. He had an experience of more than 4 years but he has not been awarded any marks for the same.

5.

According to learned Counsel for Petitioner, in the course of scrutinising the credentials of Petitioner, the Respondents have awarded him 61.79 marks, however, if he would have been awarded the marks for the experience that he had his total would have been substantially improved and it would have reached up to 73.79 and thus he would have become meritorious for being selected for the said post but on account of non-granting of marks for the experience that the Petitioner had, the marks of the Petitioner have been reduced to 61.79 and he has been brought in much lower in the order of merit. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that the Petitioner immediately raised an objection with the authorities concerned but his objections have not been considered and dealt with. Learned Counsel for Petitioner further submits that the final merit list is yet to be published by the authorities.

6.

Given the facts and circumstances that the Petitioner has narrated in the Writ Petition, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the Writ Petition pending, rather ends of justice would meet if the Writ Petition is disposed of at this juncture directing the Petitioner to approach Respondents No. 2 & 3 by way of a fresh representation to be made within a period of 10 days and Respondents No. 2 & 3 in turn shall consider the same and shall also duly scrutinise the documents submitted by the Petitioner along with his application so far as his experience and awarding of marks for experience is concerned and then an appropriate decision shall be taken within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of representation of Petitioner. The decision of Respondents No. 2 & 3 should be communicated to Petitioner also promptly. 7.

With the aforesaid direction/observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) /sharad/ JUDGE