1 2025:CGHC:32155-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 423 of 2025 1 - Shantanu Singh S/o Shri Rajshekhar Singh, Aged About 36 Years, Working as Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Block Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa, R/o Hardi (S), Tehsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh , (Petitioner No.-1 in Writ Petition), (Petitioners) 2 - Somesh Singh S/o Late Shri Ujjain Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Working as Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Block Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa, R/o House No. 155 Near Hanuman Mandir, Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, (Petitioner No. 2 in Writ Petition) 3 - Rohit Patel S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Patel, Aged About 37 Years, Working as Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa, R/o Ward No. 13, Patel Para, Jurali, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, (Petitioner No. 5 in Writ Petition) ... Appellants (Petitioners) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 3 - Director, Directorate of Agriculture, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy Director of Agriculture, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Deputy Director of Agriculture, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Deputy Director of Agriculture, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh 7 - Civil Surgeon-cum-Hospital Superintendent, District Hospital, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 8 - Civil Surgeon-cum-Hospital Superintendent, District Hospital, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 9 - Deepak Singh Rajput S/o Shri Ashok Singh Rajput, Aged About 32 Years, Working as Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Block Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, R/o House No. 2602, Ward No. 14, Opposite of Gitanjali Park Gate, Maharshi School Road, Mangla, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Petitioner No.-3 in Writ Petition) 10 - Bhushan Prasad Pandey S/o Shri Bhimsen Pandey, Aged About 36 Years, Working as Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Block Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-Champa, R/o House No. 62 A, Abhishek Vihar Phase-02, Mangla, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Petitioner No.4 in Writ Petition) 11 - Dhananjay Kumar Mahilane S/o Shri Pitamber Singh, Aged About 36 Years, Working as Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Gharghoda, District Raigarh, R/o Village Teram, Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, (Petitioner No.6 in Writ Petition) 3 12 - Anand Singh Rajput S/o Shri Bhola Ram Rajput, Aged About 32 Years, Working as Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, R/o Village Jhaphal, Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, (Petitioner No.7 In Writ Petition) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Advocate. For State-Respondents : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11-07-2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State-respondents. 2. The appellants have filed this writ appeal with the following prayer: “1. To set aside the order dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P. (S) No.2101/2025, by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in the interest of justice. 2. Grant any other relief that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the Appellant.” 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned State counsel that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 338 of 2025 (Dr. Rajkumar Jaiswal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) vide order dated 4 27-05-2025 observing as follows :- “8. Admittedly, there is a dispute with regard to the disability certificate issued in favour of the appellant. The appellant was appointed to the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon on the basis of the disability certificate. A complaint was made and the certificate of the appellant and other selected candidates was examined by a three member committee. A report was submitted and findings were recorded in favour of the appellant and other selected candidates. It appears that the disability certificates and persons suffering from disabilities were not examined by the Medical Board or any expert body, therefore, the department issued show-cause notices to the appellant and other selected candidates and those notices were challenged by filing various writ petitions. The Writ Court vide order dated 21.6.2023 passed a protective order in favour of the appellant and other selected candidates. Vide order dated 2.5.2025, the writ Court permitted the State to continue with the proceedings but restrained them from passing the final order and in the meanwhile, directed the Secretary, Department of Health of Family Welfare to constitute a State Medical Board for examination of the appellant and other selected candidates and to submit a report. 9. The appellant has not assailed the interim order passed in the writ petition dated 2.5.2025 rather he has sought a part stay, which cannot be granted. A perusal of the order dated 5 2.5.2025 would show that the interim order is still operating in favour of the appellant. No order has been passed affecting his rights, therefore, the writ appeal is not maintainable. The appellant would be at liberty to raise all the grounds available to him before the writ Court. 10. Accordingly, in our opinion, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 338 of 2025, this appeal may also be disposed of in the same terms. 4. 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. 338 of 2025, hence, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 338 of 2025. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 27-05-2025 passed in WA No. 338 of 2025 (Dr. Rajkumar Jaiswal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil