1 2025:CGHC:18265-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 264 of 2025 Yogeshwar Chandram S/o Rambhajan Chandram Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Chhote Gantuli, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Department Of Health, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video 2 conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondents / State. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6075 of 2024 (Yogeshwar Chandram vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 239/2025 (Premraj Vishal vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) vide order dated 16.04.2025, observing as follows : “8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India & Others vs. S. Vinod Kumar & Others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 100 and has held that from perusal of the record, admittedly it appears that in the advertisement dated 10.06.2022, certain directions have been issued for considering the 10-15 marks for experience and 10 marks for rendering services during Covid-19 period, however total marks which has to be awarded is only 100 marks and, as such, it exceeds 3 the total consideration of marks and the said fact was brought into the knowledge of the concerned authorities i.e. CHMO, Raigarh and thereafter, the corrigendum letter dated 04.05.2023 has been issued, which cannot be said to be faulted with. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 239/2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 239/2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 239/2025. 4 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 16.04.2025 passed in WA No. 239/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet