1 2025:CGHC:16501 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2604 of 2017 • Dr. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Ganga Sagar Singh, Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Church Road, Nandini Mines, Ahiwara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, P. S. Rakhi, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Chairman, Shankar Nagar Road, Bhagat Singh Square, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Directorate, Medical Education, Through Director, Old Nurses Hostel, DKS Bhawan Parisar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sajal Gupta, Advocate holding the brief of Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 and 3/ State For Respondent No.2 : : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08/04/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in pursuance of the advertisement dated 12.10.2016 (Annexure P-7 in accordance with his relative merit; 10. 2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the Petitioner including the cost of the petition.” Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the name of the petitioner was not considered for the post of Assistant Professor, Pediatrics pursuant to the Advertisement dated 12.10.2016. He would contend that the name of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he did not have 03 years of teaching experience according to Clause 3 (i) of the Advertisement. He would further submit that Rule 13.6 of the Medical Council of India, Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 states that post-graduate students shall be required to participate in the teaching and training programme of the undergraduate students and interns and thus, the petitioner had the requisite teaching experience and his name was rejected illegally. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that the required qualification/criteria were 03 years of teaching experience in the subject as a Resident/Registrar/Demonstrator/Tutor in a recognized Medical College either during the post-graduation course or after obtaining a postgraduate degree in the subject. They would further submit that the petitioner could not produce documents to establish the fact that he was appointed as Resident/Registrar/Demonstrator/Tutor in any recognized Medical College either during the post-graduation course or after obtaining the postgraduate degree. They would contend that Clause 3 (i) of the Advertisement specifically deals with the requisite qualification/criteria and the petitioner did not have such a qualification/experience, therefore, his name was not considered. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner did not have 03 years of teaching experience as a Resident/Registrar/Demonstrator/Tutor, therefore, his name was 3 not considered. Further, the petitioner would not get the benefit of Rule 13.6 of the Medical Council of India, Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 as he was not appointed as Resident/Registrar/Demonstrator/Tutor in any recognized Medical College either during the post-graduation course or after obtaining a postgraduate degree. The petitioner would also not get the benefit of Annexure P-7, a certificate issued by the Principal, Patna Medical College, Patna, which shows that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Resident between 2013 to 2016 because the petitioner was not appointed as a Resident and he was lacking minimum qualification as per the advertisement. 6. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere. 7. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti