1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4356 of 2025 1 - Alois Dhurway S/o Late Udaybhan Aged About 33 Years R/o Kudapani, Post - Balajhar, Karmha, District - Jashpur (C.G.), Working At Health Teacher At Sub- Health Center Baherna, Block - Manora, District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director (Directorate Of Health Service), (Health Department Sector-19), Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer District - Jashpur (C.G.) 4 - Anand Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Bajrang Thakur Aged About 34 Years Posted At Sub-Health Center Pangsuva, Block - Pathalgaon, District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Ms. Reena Singh, Advocate. For State : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 18.06. 202 5 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for a direction to the Respondent No. 2 to issue a No Objection Certificate to the petitioner to pursue Diploma in Health Promotion Education (DHPE) Course and also to provide a relieving order to him, and prayed for the following reliefs in the petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and direct the respondent no. 02 Director (Directorate of 2 Health Service) to provide NOC and respondent no.-03 to provide relieving order prior to 16th June 2025. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to take initiative upon the representations made by the petitioner prior to 16th June 2025. 10.3 In addition, this Hon'ble High Court may pass any suitable order/orders protecting the rights of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) and was posted at Sub-Health Centre, Baherna, Block Manora, District Jashpur, vide order dated 03-03-2014. He joined his service on 10-03-2014 and completed his probation period on 09-03-2016. The petitioner has completed 10 years of his service and therefore, he is entitled to his higher studies for Diploma in Health Promotion Education (DHPE) Course, which is running at the National Institute of Public Health Training and Research, Mumbai (in short “NIPHTR). Considering himself eligible, the petitioner filled up the application form and also applied for issuance of NOC to join the said course. The Respondent No. 2 has not forwarded the name of the petitioner to the Respondent No. 1 for NOC, but has recommended the names of Govind Ram Chouhan and Anand Kumar Thakur, who are senior to the petitioner, vide letter dated 15- 04-2025. On 07-05-2025, the NIPHTR issued a provisional list of candidates selected for DHPE course for the year 2025-26, in which the name of the petitioner is found at Sr. No. 24 and Govind Ram Chouhan is at Sr. No. 12. The name of Anand Kumar Thakur is found at Sr. No. 4 of wait list of the candidates. After the declaration of the provisional list of candidates by NIPHTR, the petitioner moved his representation before the Respondent No. 2 for the grant of NOC, and then the Respondent No. 2 recommended the name of the petitioner vide letter dated 14-05-2025 for the grant of NOC and sent it to Respondent No. 1, but till date, NOC has not been issued to the 3 petitioner. The NIPHTR issued a separate list of candidates from Chhattisgarh State for document verification and fixed the date of 09-06-2025 with a grace period up to 16-06-2025. The Respondent No. 1 has not issued NOC to the petitioner, and therefore, his right to be admitted to the NIPHTR for higher studies in the DHPE course would be hampered, which would cause irreparable loss to him. She would further submit that for the course of DHPE, the names of only 02 candidates would be sent from the department. One of the candidates whose name was recommended, i.e. Anand Kumar Thakur, is not in the select list but is in the wait list, whereas in the select list, only 02 candidates, i.e. the petitioner and Govind Ram Chouhan, have secured their position. Therefore, there appears to be no impediment in recommending the name of the petitioner for the DHPE course and issuing NOC to him, and the writ petition may be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State opposes the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the State Government has floated a guideline on 26-02-2019 for imparting higher education to the employees of the Health Department and according to Clause 5(f) of the said guideline, only 02 candidates are to be recommended by the department on the basis of their seniority. In the present case, Govind Ram Chouhan and Anand Kumar Thakur are the seniors to the petitioner and therefore, their names have been recommended. There are no provisions in the guidelines that other candidates may also be recommended for higher education in DHPE. The petitioner, on the anticipation of issuance of NOC, has filled up his application form, though his name was not recommended. He cannot claim his candidature as a matter of right when guideline itself is not permitted to recommend his name. Even if his name has been forwarded by the Respondent No. 3 to the Respondent No. 2, the same cannot give him any right to grant permission or to issue NOC for the DHPE course. 4 Therefore, the writ petition does not have any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. The limited issue involved in the present petition is about the issuance of an NOC to the petitioner for the DHPE course. He claims recommendation of his name for the said course and also for NOC and relieving order. The procedure for recommendation is given in the guideline issued by the State Government dated 26-02-2019 issued by the State Government and clause 5(f) of the guideline provides that the names of 02 candidates should be forwarded on the basis of their seniority. Rule 5(f) (“5-p”) of the guideline is given as below:- **5- p&izR;sd dkslZ gsrq ftys dh ofj"Brk ds vk/kkj ij dsoy 02 gh vH;fFkZ;ksa dk uke izsf"kr fd;k tk;sxkA ftldk xkslokjk layXu izk:i (ifjf’k"V&5) esa lapkyuky; dks izsf"kr fd;k tkosxkA** 6. Admittedly, the petitioner is junior to Govind Ram Chouhan and Anand Kumar Thakur. The name of both these candidates have been recommended as they are senior to the petitioner. Anand Kumar Thakur may have secured his position in the waitlist, but the guidelines do not permit for recommendation of the name of any third candidate or in such a situation, the department can also recommend the third candidate who is junior. When there is no provision in the guideline to recommend the name of the third candidate for DHPE course, non issuance of NOC and/or relieving order in favour of the petitioner cannot be said to be arbitrary or mala fide, which warrants interference of this court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder