1 2025:CGHC:16801 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3618 of 2020 1 - Triloki Prasad S/o Firanta Ram, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Khairwar Post- Marka Tahsil Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 2 - Om Prakash Chandrwanshi S/o Shukhnandan Chandrawanshi Aged About 28 Years R/o Village And Post Palansari Tahsil Pandariya District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3 - Mukesh Chandrawanshi S/o Manik Ram Chandrawanshi, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village And Post Koko Tahsil Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4 - Pradeep Kumar Chandrawanshi, S/o Kapil Ram Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Charbhata Khurd Tahsil Pandariya District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5 - Upendra Sinha S/o Maya Ram Sinha Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Khapari Post- Chachedi Tahsil Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh --- Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Health Third Flour Indrawati Bhavan Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Medical Officer, Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Medical Officer, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 6 - Chief Medical Officer, Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh --- Respondents Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.04.11 14:52:05 +0530 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 09/04/2025 1. By filing instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of advertisement dated 17-8- 2020 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No. 2/Directorate, Health Services (C.G.) for the posts of Multi Purpose Worker (Male)/Rural Health Convenor on the ground that the advertisement was issued contrary to the Chhattisgarh Health and Family Welfare Department Non-Ministerial Para- Medical and Nursing (Directorate of Health Services) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2013 (for short 'the Rules of 2013'). 2. The facts of the present case are that respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement for the post of Multi Purpose Worker on 17.08.2020. The last date for submission of the application was 30.08.2020. The required eligibility criteria were the marks obtained in Class-12th; one year diploma course in Multi Purpose Health Worker or equivalent training programme, a maximum of 15 marks was provided for experience, three marks for each year and merit list was to be prepared according to the marks obtained in Class-12th, diploma and experience. The petitioners as well as other eligible candidates submitted their application forms. On the basis of marks of Class- 12th, marks obtained in diploma and experience, a merit list was prepared. Prior to the publication of the merit list, the petitioners filed this petition 3 challenging the method of recruitment on the ground that the recruitment was being done contrary to the Rules of 2013. It is stated that in the Rules of 2013, there is a provision for written tests and interviews, whereas the recruitment is being done without conducting any written examination and viva voce. The respondents published the merit list and the petitioners could not secure the qualified marks. 3. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners would submit that Rule 11 of the Rules of 2013 specifically deals with the method of recruitment. He would further submit that according to the Rules of 2013, the Recruitment Agency ought to have conducted the written examination followed by viva voce but respondent No. 2 adopted a different method for recruitment which is not permissible. It is also contended that the petitioners had filed this writ petition prior to the publication of merit list. If respondent No. 2 had conducted a written examination and viva voce, the petitioners would have been selected or appointed against the vacant posts. He would lastly submit that the select list/merit list published by respondent No. 2 may be quashed and a direction may be issued to respondent No. 2 to conduct the recruitment afresh. 4. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the petitioners. The petitioners knowing very well the terms and conditions of the advertisement participated in the recruitment process. On account of the emergency as Covid-19 was at its peak in the month of August and September, 2020, an advertisement was issued by the 4 department to manage the situation in the State. The recruitment Rules were relaxed according to the provisions of Rule 6 (4) of the Rules of 2013. It is also contended that the petitioners could not secure the minimum cut-off marks, therefore, they have no right to challenge the recruitment process. It is also argued that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process and thereafter challenged the advertisement, therefore, this petition is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. Rule 11 of the Rules of 2013 reads as under: "11. Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examination-(1) Appointing Authority shall constitute a Selection Committee consisting of three members. (i) The competitive examination for recruitment to the service shall be held at such intervals as the Appointing Authority may, in consultation with the Government, from time to time, determine. (ii) The examination shall be held by the Selection Committee in accordance with such orders issued by the Appointing Authority from time to time. (2) Direct recruitment by selection.-(i) The Selection for direct recruitment to the service shall be held at such intervals as the Appointing Authority may, from time to time, determine; (ii) The selection of candidates for the service shall be made through interview by the Selection Committee; (iii) The Selection Committee shall be constituted by the Appointing Authority from time to time. (3) There shall be reserved posts for the candidates 5 belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, at the stage of direct recruitment, in accordance with the provisions contained in the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Janjatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (No. 21 of 1994) and orders issued by the State Government from time to time. (4) In filling up the vacancies so reserved, the candidates who are members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes shall be considered for appointment in the order in which their names appear in the list referred to in rule 12, irrespective of their relative rank as compared with other candidates. (5) Candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes declared by the Appointing Authority to be suitable for appointment to the service with due regard to the maintenance of efficiency of administration, may be appointed to the vacancies reserved for the candidates of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, as the case may be. (6) At the stage of direct recruitment, 30 percent posts shall be reserved for women candidates in accordance with the provisions of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997. (7) In such cases, where certain period of experience has been prescribed as an essential condition for the posts to be filled by direct recruitment and in the opinion of the Appointing Authority, it is found that the sufficient number of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, with the requisite experience, is not likely to be available for recruitment on the reserved posts, then the Appointing Authority may relax the condition of experience to the candidates of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. (8) Reservation for the physically handicapped candidates shall be applicable as per the directions issued by the General Administration Department from time to time." The above-quoted Rule 11 deals with the Direct Recruitment by Selection/Competitive Examination. This Rule further states that the Appointing Authority has to constitute a Selection Committee of three members to conduct a competitive examination for recruitment and it would 6 be followed by the interview. 7. Rule 6(4) of the Rules of 2013 is reproduced herein below:- "Rule.6-Mode of recruitment-(4)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), if in the opinion of Government it is necessary to do so keeping in view the exigency of the service, then the Government, after the approval of General Administration Department, may adopt such method(s) different from those method(s) for the recruitment specified in these rules, as it may, by order issued in this behalf, prescribe." Rule 6(4) of the Rules of 2013 deals with the Mode of Recruitment. This Rule states that if in the opinion of the Government, it is necessary to do so keeping in view the exigency of the service, then the Government, after the approval of General Administration Department, may adopt such method(s) different from those methods for the recruitment specified in these rules. 8. In the year 2020, on account of the outburst of Covid-19 pandemic, the situation was not normal, therefore, a decision was taken by the State Government to recruit Health Workers for proper management of the emergent situation and therefore, the approval was accorded by the General Administration Department to relax the Rules of 2013 and pursuant to that approval, the advertisement was issued and the Multipurpose Health Workers were appointed. 9. On going through the return filed by the respondents, it can be 7 held that on 05.12.2015, a decision was taken by the General Administration Department to relax the Rules of 2013 looking to the emergent situation for recruitment of Class-IV employees and the deviation from the Rules of 2013 is not fatal to the decision taken by the State. 10. Further, the petitioners could not secure the position in the merit list and therefore also, no case is made out in their favour. 11. On the basis of the above-discussed facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak