1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8664 of 2023 1 - Mishri Lal Kashyap S/o Chhatram Kashyap Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Malda, Post Birra, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Health And Family Welfare Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Health Service, Swasthya Bhawan, Sector 19 Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Joint Director Health Services, Bilaspur Division, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Sakti, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sibashish Mishra, Advocate and Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16/09/2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s):- ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 10.1. The Hon’ble Court to kindly be quashed the remark mentioning petitioner ineligible (Annexure P/6) stating the age more than 45 years & further direct to consider the candidature of petitioner considering him eligible, by taking into account petitioner’s number of years of contractual services or in an alternative the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to absorb the petitioner on regular basis on the post of Ophthalmic Assistant Officer, at Primary health Center Thattari, Block _ Jaijaipur, District – Sakti and also be allowed to continue on the said post. 10.2. Any other relief which this Honb’le Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that he is presently serving as an Ophthalmic Assistant Officer on a substantive/contractual basis at the Primary Health Center, Thattari, Block Jaijaipur, District Sakti, having initially been appointed to the post by order dated 17.11.2011 issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Janjgir Champa, and his contractual engagement has been extended periodically, most recently up to 31.03.2024 or until regular appointments are made. Despite rendering uninterrupted and satisfactory service for over 12 years and possessing all requisite qualifications, the petitioner was unjustly disqualified from consideration for regular 3 appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.06.2022 on the sole ground of exceeding the maximum age limit of 45 years, notwithstanding that he is entitled to age relaxation as a domiciled OBC (non-creamy layer) candidate of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner contends that the exclusion based on age is arbitrary and discriminatory, especially when no regular recruitment was conducted since 2011-12, thereby resulting in over-ageing through no fault of his own. Furthermore, no weightage or relaxation was accorded to the petitioner’s long contractual service in contravention of settled principles and the ratio laid down in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 1 , and despite policy directions dated 07.04.2012 recommending regularization of similarly situated employees. The petitioner further relies on the judgment in R.S. Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh 2 where protection from discontinuation was granted in identical circumstances. Hence, the petitioner assails the inaction of the respondent authorities as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition may be disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make detail representation raising his grievances as raised in this petition and in turn respondent authorities may further be directed to consider and decide the representation of the petition in accordance with the relevant rules and law applicable to the case of petitioner. 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 WPS No.4933 of 2016 4 3. Learned State Counsel does not oppose the limited prayer made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and further submits that if petitioner will file representation before the authorities, they may consider that the petitioner is fit person to be considered. 4. In view of the above submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition stands disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to submit a representation raising the grounds as raised in this petition before respondent authorities within ‘15 days’ from today and in the event of submission of the said representation, respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within ‘60 days’ thereof in accordance with the law and relevant rules/circulars. 5. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena