1 2025:CGHC:20880 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 732 of 2017 1 - Kumari Seema Nag D/o Shri Singlu Nag, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Hasalnar And Post Matwal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health Department, New Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan 3rd Floor, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Commissioner, Health And Welfare Department, Bastar Division Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ku. Sarita Matlam, D/o Shri Jaipal Ram Matlam, R/o Village Jhuniyapara, Kanker, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 6 - Ku. Anju Usendi, D/o Shri Motiram Usendi, R/o Village Mudpar, Dakhni Chhotepara, Post Sarona, Tahsil Naraharpur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Sahu, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. For respective : Mr. Vivek Kumar Gupta, Advocate holding Respondents the brief of Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Adv. and Mr. Ravi Mahenshwari, Advocate REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.05.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a appropriate writ and quash the impugned order dated 16.01.2017 Annexure P/1, in the interest of justice. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and direct that the respondents they may issue appointment order to the petitioner for the post of Rural Health Convener (Women) (ANM). 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass an appropriate order or issue writ as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.4 invited applications for the Post of Rural Health Convener (Women) (ANM) and the examination was conducted on 11.09.2016. He would further submit that there were a total of seven posts for the Scheduled Tribes category (ST). The advertisement was issued for the District Kanker only. He would contend that according to clauses 2 & 17 of the advertisement, the candidate was required to be a resident of a particular district. He would further contend that the petitioner is a resident of Kondagaon District. He would also submit that the petitioner was meritorious to respondent No.6 as she secured 40.816 marks in the 3 examination whereas respondent No.6 secured 38.5 marks but the name of the petitioner was not considered for the appointment. He would pray to quash the appointment order of respondent No.6. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that vide notifications dated 17.01.2012, 10.03.2015 and 04.01.2017, it was clarified that for the appointment on a Class-III and Class-IV post in Bastar and Sarguja Divisions, preference would be given to the permanent residents of a particular division. They would further submit that in the advertisement, particularly in clauses 2 & 17, it was clarified that the candidate should be a resident of a particular district when the advertisement has been issued. They would also contend that the petitioner is a resident of Kondagaon and she applied for the District Kanker, therefore, her candidature was rejected though she was meritorious. They would further argue that the petitioner knowing very well the terms and conditions of the advertisement, participated in the recruitment process and being unsuccessful, challenged the appointment order of respondent No.6. They would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner and respondent No. 6 participated in the recruitment for the post of ANM. According to clauses 2 & 17 of -4- the advertisement, the candidate was required to be a resident of the same district where the advertisement was issued. The advertisement was issued for the District Kanker only. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a resident of Kondagaon. Though she was declared eligible but she was not found to be a resident of District Kanker therefore her candidature was rejected. 7. The petitioner knowing very well clauses 2 & 17 of the advertisement, participated in the recruitment process and when she was not selected, she challenged the recruitment process and the appointment of respondent No.6 by filing this petition. 8. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, no case is made out for interference. 9. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha