1 2025:CGHC:14449-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1590 of 2025 1 - Waghaye Patil Vaishnavi Sevakbhau Saroj D/o Shri Sevakbhau Waghaye Patil Aged About 26 Years R/o A3-404, Mhada Complex, Samrudhi Sankul Civil Line, Nagpur (Urban) Nagpur Maharashtra 2 - Ravi Ranjan S/o Shri Chiranjiwi Roy Aged About 29 Years R/o Near Middle School, Mirapur, District - Muzaffarpur Bihar 3 - Swatu Singh D/o Shri Sunil Kumar Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Gajadhar Nursing Home, Nahar Chowk, Rajopatti, Sitamarhi Chakmahila, District - Sitamarhi Bihar ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur - Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director of Medical Education Old Nurses Campus, Dks Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Commissioner Medical Education, Swasth Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Nava Raipur - Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Chairman Counselling Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, Swasth Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Nava Raipur - Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Shri Shankaracharya Institute of Medical Sciences Junwani, Bhilai, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.03.26 18:39:58 +0530 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Mr. Anish Tiwari and Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocates For Respondents /State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anish Tiwari and Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State- respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers :- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ / order/direction, commanding the Respondent authorities to produce the entire records necessary for adjudication of the instant petition. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction, directing the respondent authorities to conduct counselling and consider the petitioners for grant of admission against the vacant seats of NRI Quota for allotment/ admission in the PG medical seats in respondent no. 05/college, by granting additional time, if required. 10.3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction, directing the respondent authorities to take necessary measures 3 for ensuring that no seat of PG Medical Course under C.G. State Quota remains vacant after the Special Stray Vacancy Round. 10.4 Any other relief(s), direction(s), which Hon'ble the Court deems fit, and proper, in the circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that two NRI State quota medical seats are vacant in respondent No.05 Medical College. He further submitted that for the said two seats, two candidates, namely Priyansh Jain and Rajat Goyal have been called, but they never appeared or occupied the seats because they were already allotted seats in other States. Hence, the petitioners are only praying for allotment of those two seats to the candidates who came after those two candidates and seats should not be remained vacant. 4. At the outset, learned State Counsel submits that the present petition is not maintainable because though the petitioners have alleged that Priyansh Jain and Rajat Goyal have been called, but they never appeared or occupied the seats because they were already allotted seats in other States, but they were not made as party respondents. Further, there is no documentary proof to show that they have occupied seats in other States and submission raised by learned State counsel has substance. 5. On a pointed query being made to learned counsel for the petitioners as to why they have not made the said two persons as 4 party-respondents, they did not give any satisfactory explanation in this regard. 6. From perusal of the prayers and pleadings made in the instant petition, it transpires that the despite alleging that Priyansh Jain and Rajat Goyal have been called, but they never appeared or occupied the seats because they were already allotted seats in other States, they have not been made as party-respondents and further, there is no documentary proof to show that they have occupied seats in other States, which goes to show that the petition drafted by learned counsel for the petitioners by non- joinder of necessary parties, is in a very casual manner and further wastage of precious time of the Court, as such, in the opinion of this Court, the petition is non-maintainable. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as non- maintainable with liberty to file afresh petition with necessary parties, subject to depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost by the petitioners before the Registry of this Court and submit a receipt of the same at the time of filing of the fresh petition, if any, and the amount so deposited, if any, shall be transmitted to the Government Children’s Home for Orthopedically Handicapped, Mana Camp Raipur (C.G.). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra