1 / 5 2025:CGHC:15003 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2134 of 2025 1 - Geeta Kol W/o Shri Baldev Prasad Kolam Aged About 25 Years R/o Vill-Kodasar (Siltara) Ward No. 8, Tah. Takhatpur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Health Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Tah. And Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chief Health And Medical Officer Rajnandgaon, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Block Medical Officer, Old District Hospital Building, Rajnandgaon, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 28/03/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the act of respondent No.2 by which the respondent No.2 has rejected the 2 / 5 candidature of the petitioner for recruitment to the post of Dresser Grade-II on the ground that the petitioner is not having the domicile certificate at the time of submission of application form i.e. 30/06/2022. 2. (i) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the advertisement was issued on 10/06/2022 for the post of Dresser Grade-II and the petitioner is resident of Chhattisgarh having all the eligibility criteria fixed in the advertisement applied for the said post by submitting that the petitioner is resident of Chhattisgarh though he has not annexed the domicile certificate issued by the competent authority along with the application form. He further submits that it is not required to annex the domicile certificate at the time of submission of application form as per the advertisement because Clause 4 of the General Rules and Conditions provides that the candidate shall produce the certificate of residence at the time of document verification and there was no condition in the advertisement that the petitioner has to annex the domicile certificate at the time of submission of the application form. (ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Chhattisgarh Health and Family Welfare Department Non- Ministerial Para-Medical and Nursing (Directorate Health Services) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2013 (for short, “the Rules, 2013”) under which the recruitment process is being conducted is also not prescribed any provision for domicile certificate as essential qualification in the said recruitment. Hence 3 / 5 the respondent by rejecting the candidature of the petitioner has committed error of law and the respondent be directed to permit the petitioner to participate in the counselling which is going on. By referring the judgment dated 18/08/2023 passed in WA No.92/2021 in the matter of Shristi Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., learned counsel submits that the petitioner is on the same footing and hence he may be permitted to participate in the counselling pursuance to the advertisement dated 10/06/2022. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the condition in the advertisement is that the candidates should be a resident of Chhattisgarh and he or she has to produce the domicile certificate while participating in the recruitment process. The proforma of application form prescribed place for attachment of certificate and the petitioner failed to attach the domicile certificate while submitting the application form hence the domicile certificate after cut off date cannot be taken into consideration while considering the candidature of the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. It appears from the reason assigned by the respondent while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner that the petitioner is having domicile certificate which was issued subsequent to the date of advertisement hence it is crystal clear that the candidature of the petitioner is rejected only on the ground that the petitioner is having a domicile certificate issued by the competent authority on 4 / 5 10/03/2025 whereas the advertisement was issued on 10/06/2022 and the last date of submission of the application form was 30/06/2022. 6. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is a resident of Chhattisgarh and is having domicile certificate though it has been issued subsequent to the advertisement and the last date of submission of the application form. 7. It is brought to the knowledge of this Court that in the Rules, 2013 on the basis of which the recruitment process is being conducted, no such disqualification stating that non-submission of domicile certificate will be considered to be a disqualification, however the Respondent/ State has rejected the candidature of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner is having domicile certificate issued by the competent authority after the date of advertisement and the last date of submission of application form. 8. 8. In the matter of Shristi Sharma (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held thus at para 8 that “Division Bench of this Court in WA No.65/2023 in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh and Another Versus Nimisha Mishra vide Order dated 19.04.2023 has held that "the advertisement is governed and regulated by the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Education and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019, Rule 8 categorically defines eligibility in terms of 'age', 'educational qualification & experience', 'fees', but domicile certificate is not the essential qualification, as prescribed under the Rule, therefore, it is not necessary for the appellant/writ 5 / 5 petitioner to obtain domicile certificate on or before the date of declaration of result by VYAPAM. As such, the domicile certificate is not the essential qualification for consideration for appointment and the appellant/writ petitioner cannot be dis-allowed for appointment on the count of late submission of domicile certificate." 9. In view of the above discussion and the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court, the writ petition is allowed. It is directed that the respondents shall do needful by arranging a counselling and to permit the petitioner in the same within a period 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The petitioner is at liberty to apprise the respondent authorities with regard to the order passed by this Court. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar