1 / 5 2025:CGHC:13922 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 37 of 2025 1 Sushila Dubey D/o Late Chhannu Lal Aged About 46 Years Currently Posted As Demonstrator At Government Nursing College, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 Director, Directorate Medical Education, Health Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 Principal Govt. Nursing College, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 8409 of 2024 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.03.25 11:58:17 +0530 2 / 5 1 Sabita Manharan W/o Amit Manharan Aged About 44 Years Nursing Demonstrator And Posted At Govt. College Of Nursing Ambikapur District - Sarguja (C.G.) 2 Smt. Seema Thawait W/o Sunil Thawait Aged About 44 Years Nursing Demonstrator And Posted At Govt. College Of Nursing Ambikapur District - Sarguja (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Depratment Of Health Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 Director Medical Education Department Health Bhawan North Block Sector 1, Naya Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 Principal Nursing College Ambikapur District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh 4 Sushila Dubey D/o Late Channu Lal Aged 42 Years Currently Posted As Demonstrator Govt. College Of Nursing Ambikapur District - Sarguja (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Jitendra Gupta and Shri Sashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Shri Ajit Singh, G.A. and Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. For Intervenor : Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 3 / 5 22/03/2025 1. Since the issue involved in both these matters is similar, they are being considered and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and documents of WPS No.37 of 2025 are being referred. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 04.12.2024 issued by the Director, Directorate Medical Education dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure P-1) by which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. 3. Presently, the petitioner is questioning the order of rejection of his representation dated 04.12.2024 on the ground that the reason on which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected stating that earlier for the year 2022, 10% of the employees, 2 demonstrator of the Nursing College have been sent for higher education for which the petitioner’s representation has ben rejected and even it has been intimated that earlier the proposal of the Principal dated 29.08.2024 has been rejected vide order dated 03.10.2024. Hence, the representation has been rejected on the said ground though 2 demonstrators who have been sent for higher education in the year 2022 have completed their M.Sc. Nursing course and have rejoined their services in the year 2024 and as far as the rejection of the proposal dated 29.08.2024 is concerned the same has never been communicated to the petitioner. 4 / 5 4. Learned counsel for the respondents by referring Rule 5 (3) of the C.G. Nursing Admission Rules, 2019 (for short Rule, 2019) would submit that in the said rule it has been specifically mentioned that if an employee who have been permitted to take admission as an in-service candidate the said employee cannot be permitted in the subsequent courses. They further by referring para 6 of the reply submits that the present petitioner has been permitted to continue his B.SC Nursing as in-service candidate in the year 2017. Presently, she cannot be again permitted to take admission for M.Sc Nursing course. They further submits that the petitioner has appeared in the entrance exam without any permission from the employer and hence she cannot claim as a matter of right to take admission in the M.Sc. Nursing course. 5. Learned counsel for the intervener submits that in the earlier round of petition, the petitioner preferred writ petition without disclosing the fact that on 19.04.2024 the permission has been denied to the interveners as well as to the petitioners which has been filed by the respondent/ State as R-2 wherein the intervenor who is senior to the petitioner, his candidature has also been refused by the said communication dated 19.04.2024. He further submits that as far as the interveners are concerned, the interveners are also entitled for permission to pursue M.SC Nursing course. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 04.12.2024 by which the representation of the petitioner which has been filed in pursuance of the order of this 5 / 5 Court in WPS NO. 7311/ 2024. While considering the representation it appears that the Rule 2013 has not been taken into consideration and the order of rejection has been passed by the Respondent No. 2. Even the petitioner’s contention that 2 demonstrator who have sent for higher education M.SC Nursing in the year 2022 have already rejoined their services in the year 2024 and this fact has not been considered by the Director. Hence, without commenting on the merits of the case, the respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner including the case of intervenor namely Sabita Manharan and Smt. Seema Thawait afresh in accordance with Rule 5 (3) of the Rules 2019. The respondent No.2 is also directed to provide opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner, intervenors and pass necessary orders in accordance with rules 2019 by examining the grievance and claim of the parties. 7. The petitioners and the intervenors are directed to submit their plea before the respondent No. 2 within a period of 10 days from today, and in case of filing such representation/ contention before the respondent No. 2, the same shall be decided within a period of 40 days from today. 8. Accordingly, both the petitions stand disposed of. 9. Parties are at liberty to apprise the respondent No. 2 about the order of this court. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti