1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7363 of 2023 1 - Rajeev Singh Sahu S/o Shri Ravi Singh Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Near Sudama Aloo Godam, H.No.56, Ward No.19, Kailash Nagar, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Health Service Pension Bada, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Durg, Civil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Balod, Civil And Revenue District Balod Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Bemetara, Civil And Revenue District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Korea, Civil And Revenue District Korea Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents 2 (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Navoday Singh, Advocate For State :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 15.12.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking following reliefs:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 05/01/2023 wrongly mentioned as 05.06.2023 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of MPHW (M), in the interest of justice OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the authorities to pay compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/- (In Words - Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) in lieu of appointment. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 3 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition stands squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in WPS No. 1953 of 2023 (Prashant Kumar Mishra vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and other bunch of petitions decided by this Hon’ble Court on 19.12.2025. It is jointly prayed that the present writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the observations and findings recorded therein. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:– “30. Reverting to the facts of the present cases in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (supra), it is quite vivid that the petitioners cannot claim any enforceable or vested right to seek appointment to the post of MPHW (M) by invoking the Recruitment Rules of 2013 with retrospective effect. 31. The advertisement pursuant to which the petitioners had applied was issued in the year 2012, at a point of time when the Rules of 2013 were not in existence, and the eligibility conditions prevailing on the date of advertisement alone governed the selection process. The subsequent framing of the Rules of 2013, which are expressly prospective in operation, cannot be relied upon to reopen or alter the eligibility criteria applicable to an earlier recruitment. 4 32. The plea of legitimate expectation or equitable consideration advanced by the petitioners is equally untenable. As authoritatively clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to compel the State to act contrary to statutory provisions, nor can it be pressed into service to confer retrospective operation upon rules which are, by their very nature, prospective. In the present case, there was no representation, assurance, or promise by the State that the Rules of 2013 would be applied retrospectively or that the qualifications possessed by the petitioners would be treated as equivalent for appointments governed by the advertisement issued in the year 2012. 33. This Court also finds no merit in the allegation of hostile discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are identically situated with other candidates whose representations have been rejected on the same grounds, and the respondent authorities have applied the statutory rules uniformly and consistently. Such uniform application of law negates any charge of arbitrariness or unequal treatment. 34. In view of the settled legal position, the statutory framework governing the field, and the earlier adjudication by this Court as well as the Division Bench, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned 5 rejection of the representations of the petitioners suffers from no illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any legal right accruing in their favour so as to justify the grant of the reliefs claimed. 35. Consequently, and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, all the writ petitions, i.e. WPS Nos.1953/2023, 5421/2023, 6059/2023, 6126/2023, 6223/2023, 6237/2023, 6303/2023, 6450/2023 and 7421/2023 filed by the petitioners, are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 3. Since the grievance of the petitioner is identical to the one considered in WPS No. 1953 of 2023 (Prashant Kumar Mishra vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and others decided on 19.12.2025, and the petitioner in the present case is also seeking the same relief, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of and in line with the aforesaid judgment. No order as to cost(s). sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha