1 2025:CGHC:1393 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5309 of 2024 1. Smt. Durga Sahu W/o Shri Devendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 38 Years Working as Rural Health Coordinator (Female), Sub- Health Centre, Ranigaon, Nagri, District- Dhamtari (C.G.). 2. Smt. Sangeeta Bala Som W/o Krishna Som, Aged About 44 Years Working as Rural Health Coordinator (Female), Primary Health Centre, Dugli Nagri, District- Dhamtari (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, (C.G.). 2. The Director, Directorate of Health Services, Health Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.). Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 3. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Health Services, Health Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.). 4. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Dhamtari, District-Dhamtari (C.G.). 5. The Block Medical Officer, Nagri, District- Dhamtari (C.G.). 6. Smt. Deepti Dewangan, working as Rural Health Coordinator (Female), Health and Wellness Centre, Kosmarra, District- Dhamtari (C.G.). 7. Mullshankar Sahu, working as Rural Health Coordinator (Male), Sub-Health Centre, Korra, District- Dhamtari (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. G.A. For Respondents No. 6 & 7 : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/01/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 05.08.2024 (Annexure P/1) so far it relates to 3 the respondents no. 6 & 7. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to send the petitioners for completion of 2 years ophthalmic course, in accordance with law. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioners have been appointed as Multipurpose Health Worker on 28.06.2008 under the respondent no. 1 department and accordingly the petitioners joined the services on 04.07.2008 and since then the petitioners are discharging their duties with utmost sincerity and honesty, upto the satisfaction of their superior authorities, without any stigma or complaint. On 26.02.2019, the respondent no. 1 has issued a circular/policy for sending/granting approval for the employees for completion of higher course/training and in Clause (च) of instruction for the Class-III & IV employees, it has been directed that only 2 employees of the District shall be recommended/ selected for training/course on the basis of seniority. The Division Joint Director, Health Services, Durg has issued gradation list of Rural Health Coordinator (Female) as 4 stood on 01.01.2024, in which, the name of petitioners are mentioned at serial no. 519 & 595 respectively, whereas the name of respondents No. 6 & 7 are mentioned at serial no. 1092 (female list) & 228 (male list). Thereafter, the respondent No. 6 was initially appointed on 09.11.2012 and respondent No. 7 was initially appointed on 03.10.2009, thus the respondents No. 6 & 7 are much juniors than the petitioners. As per the circular of State Government dated 20.06.2024, the respondent No. 4 has accorded consent in favour of petitioners for completion of 2 years of Ophthalmic course. However, all of sudden, the respondent No. 2 has issued impugned order dated 05.08.2024, whereby at serial No. 34 & 35 the respondent No. 2 has selected the respondents No. 6 & 7 for completion of 2 years Ophthalmic course, which is contrary to the circular/ policy dated 26.02.2019, as the respondents No. 6 & 7 are much juniors and further their names have not been recommended by the District Level. On 22.08.2024 after knowledge of above, the petitioners have made representation for selecting the petitioners for completion of ophthalmic training course as their names have been recommended by the respondent No. 4 and they are seniors than the respondents No. 6 & 7, but till date no action has been taken. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the circular of the State Government dated 26.02.2019 by which the petitioners 5 are required to be sent for training. In this circular itself it has been stated that the persons who are willing to go for training are required to file appropriate application and upon filing of the application on the basis of their seniority names of two persons for each District will be selected and they will be sent for training. He further submits that the petitioners are seniors and their names were recommended for training even though their names were not considered and the impugned order the respondents No. 6 & 7 have been sent for training which is not in accordance with law and as such the petition is liable to be allowed. 4. On the other learned counsel for respondents No. 6 & 7 submits that this training is for the year 2023-2024 which is apparent from the order of State Government dated 15.03.2024 by which it has been clearly stated that due to strike and other hindrance the training etc could not be done in the year 2023-2024 as such the training for the said period would be taken in the year 2024-2025 and the employees who have filed application in the year 2023- 2024 would be considered for the same. He further submits that the petitioners have not applied for that year and the respondents No. 6 & 7 have applied for the year. Taking into consideration for the aforesaid order their names were included in the list of the persons who are required to be taken training in the said Ophthalmic course. He further submits that the petitioners have 6 not filed an application in the year 2023-2024 as such their names could not be considered though they are seniors and their names were required to be considered but since they were not filed their applications as per circular of the State Government, therefore, their names were not considered and there is no illegality in the impugned order as such the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that in the year 2023-2024 due to strike and other hindrance, the training could not be conducted as such according to the order of State Government the training is being conducted in the year 2024-2025 as such the impugned order has been passed which is in accordance with law and it is not required to be interfered with. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. After considering the impugned order as well as circular of the State Government dated 26.02.2019 in which it has been clearly stated that the persons who are willing to get the training should have filed an application and upon filing of the application on the basis of seniority name of two persons will be sent for the two years of Ophthalmic training course. Since the petitioners have not made any application seeking training in the year 2023-2024 as such their names were not considered though they have filed 7 an application and their recommendations have been made for the year 2024-2025. However, an order dated 15.03.2024, it was directed that the training pertaining to the year 2023-2024 would be conducted in the year 2024-2025 and the persons who have applied in the year 2023-2024 would be considered for the further training, I am not having hesitation in dismissing the petition on this ground alone stating that even after seniority since the petitioners have not applied for training as such they cannot be considered for training. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition filed by the petitioners is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat