1 2025:CGHC:17375-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 239 of 2025 Premraj Vishal S/o Rajkumar Vishal Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Chikhali, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund 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 Department Of Health Indrawati Bhawan, Atatl 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. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.04.2025 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.04.21 16:50:18 +0530 2 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for respondents / State. 3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 07.03.2025 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6160/2024 (Premraj Vishal vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) by which, the learned dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the Chief Medical & Health Officer Raigarh (Respondent No. 3) issued an advertisement inviting online applications for various post including the post of Pharmacist Grade- II, Dresser Grade- I, & II, RHO (Male) and RHO (Female) and Dark Room Assistant by 10.06.2022. In the said advertisement in para 12 it is specifically mentioned that how marks have been given as per Education qualification and Experience and Experience During the Covid-19 Period. The application invited from the qualified persons from 20.06.2022 to 11.07.2022 in online mode. The list was published on 23.07.2024 by the respondent No. 3, the petitioner was given 15 marks for work experience but he did not give 10 marks for Covid-19 bonus marks and in this regard, the writ petitioner moved application on 28.07.2024 through Speed post for giving the bonus marks. The writ petitioner filed WPS No. 6160/2024 challenging the rejection 3 of candidature of the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 07.03.2025. Hence this appeal 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that, in some of the district (Like Kanker, Narayanpur, Bijapur and Kondagaon) the work experience and COVID- 19 bonus marks were given separately, therefore the action of respondents is illegal and against the Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate that, the application were invited from the qualified persons from 20.06.2022 to 11.07.2022 via online mode and the writ petitioner applied for the post of Pharmacist Grade- II on 09.07.2022. Thereafter, the Rules of selection process was changed by the respondent authorities is against the Hon'ble Supreme Court’s recent judgment passed on 07.11.2024 in case of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. in Civil Appal No. 2635/2013. The rejection of candidature on the ground which was not in the advertisement amounts to change of rule during the selection process which has been held to be bad in law in case of Manraj Tamboli Vs State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 2683/2018) dated 19.04.2022. The order of the learned Single Judge has caused irreparable loss to the writ petitioner who have experience and is also eligible for 10 bonus marks for Covid-19 pandemic experience. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and 4 submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which, no interference is sought. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 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 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 5 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). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet