1 2025:CGHC:43566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6933 of 2018 1 - Hemant Kumar Sahu S/o Pyari Lal Sahu, Aged About 34 Years R/o Naya Risda (Bhadrapara), Balko Nagar, Ward No. 36, Near Cgn School, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ashok Kumar Verma S/o Late Gend Ram Verma Aged About 34 Years R/o Near Maa Mavli Public School, Birgaon, Tahsil Dharsiwa District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Basant Kumar Patil S/o Prahlad Prasad Patil Aged About 37 Years R/o Village And Po Anandragaon, Tahsil And Ps Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Amar Singh S/o Late Dukalu Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Vikas Nagar Kota Road, Near Bans-Tall, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Durgesh Kumar Sahu S/o Indal Ram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village And Po Beltukri, Tahsil And Ps Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Bharat Lal S/o Dhaal Chand Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Damapur, Po Chilfi Bangla Tahsil Pandariya District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Rural Development, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Po And Ps Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Urban Administration And Rural Development, State Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Under Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Rural Development, State Of Chhattisgarh, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Po And Ps Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 4 - The Secretary Department Of Technical Education, Manpower, Planning, Science And Technology, State Of Chhattisgarh, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Director Directorate Of Technical Education, Manpower, Planning, Science And Technology, State Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through Its Controller Of Exam, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Deeksha Gouraha, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. For respondent No.6 : Dr. Saurabh Pande, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.08.2025 Heard. 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 direct the respondent No.1 to 3/ State to consider the candidature of the petitioners and issue the appointment & posting order, as per their merit, mentioned in the provisional selection-list for Sanitary-Inspector 10.2 quash the letter dated 05.10.2018 issued by the Under Secretary, Urban Administration & Rural Development, Chhattisgarh 10.3 grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. 2. Ms. Gouraha, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.02.2018, issued by the Department of Urban Administration & Development for selection on 57 posts of Sanitary Inspector, the petitioners submitted their application form. 3 She would further submit that the advertisement was issued according to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palik Nigam (Adhikariyon Aur Karmachariyon Ki Niyukti Tatha Seva Ke Nibandhan Evam Sharten) Niyam, 2018 (for short ‘the Rules of 2018’), and other allied Rules. She would contend that the minimum educational qualification for the post of Sanitary Inspector has been prescribed in the Rules as a Graduate Degree (B.Sc.) in Biology and a diploma in Sanitary Inspector from any recognized Institute. She would further contend that the petitioners participated in the examination, and a select list was published on 17.09.2018. She would also submit that the petitioners secured good marks, but they were not called for the document verification. She would further argue that the petitioners were having a B.Sc. Degree in Biology and certificates of Health Sanitary Inspector issued by the National Council for Vocational Training but as they were not having a diploma of Sanitary Inspector, they were not called for the document verification. She would also argue that the certificate course of Health Sanitary Inspector is equivalent to a diploma, and such a circular was issued by the State Government on 27.04.2013 and the said circular was not considered by the respondent authorities during the course of the selection process. She would also contend that the course of a diploma in Sanitary Inspector started in the State of Chhattisgarh in the year 2019; therefore, it was not possible for the petitioners to acquire the said qualification. She would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Shukla, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State, would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. She would submit that an advertisement was issued in accordance with the Rules of 2018, where the minimum 4 educational qualification for the post of Sanitary Inspector was B.Sc. Biology and a diploma in Sanitary Inspector from any recognized institute. She would further submit that as the petitioners were not having a diploma in the Sanitary Inspector course from a recognized Institute, their names were not considered for selection. She would contend that the petitioners, after participating in the recruitment process, challenged the letter dated 05.10.2018 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Under Secretary, which prescribes the minimum qualification for the post of Sanitary Inspector. She would further contend that as the Rules of 2018 came into force on 16.01.2018, the advertisement was issued pursuant to the Rules, 2018. She would also contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Dr. Pande, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.6, would support the contentions made by Ms. Shukla. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. In the present case, the petitioners participated in the entire recruitment process and thereafter challenged the entire selection process on various grounds. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State Of J & K and others, 1995 (3) SCC 486, has held that if a candidate participates in the recruitment process and, after the result, turns around challenging the process, it is not permissible. Relevant para is reproduced herein below:- “9………………….It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the 5 case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors., (AIR 1986 SC 1043), it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.” 8. In the present case, the petitioners did not have the requisite qualification of a diploma in Sanitary Inspector from a recognized Institute; rather, they had a certificate issued by the National Council for Vocational Training, which was not equivalent to a diploma, and therefore, the names of the petitioners were not considered. 9. The petitioners have challenged the circular issued by the State Government dated 05.10.2018, wherein the minimum eligibility criteria have been prescribed for the post of Sanitary Inspector. The petitioners were aware of the minimum qualification prior to the submission of their application forms, but they kept mum; they participated in the recruitment process and thereafter challenged it. 10. The qualification was prescribed in the advertisement in accordance with the Rules of 2018. 11. Considering the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. 12. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 13. The interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Rekha