1 2025:CGHC:57101 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2664 of 2023 1 - Maneshwar Lal Gajbiye S/o Shri Gajanad Gajbiye Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 145-Kha, Post Pandripani, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate Of Medical Education Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector North Baster Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) 4 - The Dean Office Of Government Medical College Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 5 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer North Baster, Kanker District North Baster Kanker (C.G.) 6 - Chaman Lal S/o Shri Manashvi, Working Senior Technician Electrical In The Office Of Government Medical College Kanker District North Baster Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. R. S. Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 24/11/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs : Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and direct the respondent authorities to add/allot 10 marks for work experience as per the conditions of the notification and thereafter, issue appointment order to the petitioner for the post of Senior Technician Electrical, in the interest of justice 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and direct the respondent authorities to cancel the appointment order of the respondent no. 6 (Chaman Lal S/o Shri Manashvi), in the interest of justice. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and direct the respondent authorities to decide the representation dated 16.09.2022 (Annexure P/8) within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass an appropriate order or issue writ as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on 05.01.2022, the respondent authorities issued a notification inviting applications for various Class-III and Class-IV posts, including Staff Nurse, Technician, Lab Technician and Supervisor, in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Medical Education Department Non-Ministerial (Related to Directorate Medical Education Department) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2015. The examination for the said posts was scheduled on 13.03.2022 in two sessions, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and from 02:00 p.m. to 04:00 p.m. As per Condition No. 5 of the notification, candidates possessing experience in Government, Semi-Government, Corporations or Boards 3 on contract, daily-wage or ad-hoc basis were entitled to a maximum of 10 experience marks, to be awarded at the rate of 2 marks per year or 1 mark for every completed six-month period, subject to production of valid appointment orders and experience certificates issued by the employer. The petitioner possesses six years of experience in maintenance, repair, installation and operation of solar plants, having served as Senior Technician (Electrical) under CREDA, District Office Bastar, since October 2016, and was also issued experience certificates on 07.02.2022 and 19.08.2021 acknowledging his continuous engagement, including during the COVID-19 pandemic, for operation and maintenance of drinking water, power supply and solar plants in both urban and rural areas. Having fulfilled all requisite eligibility and educational qualifications, the petitioner duly submitted his application for the post of Senior Technician (Electrical) and was issued an admit card bearing Roll No. 10100105, with the examination centre at Govt. Kaktiya P.G. College, Jagdalpur. Upon publication of the merit list, the petitioner secured 79.702 marks and was placed at Rank 03. Thereafter, by press notification dated 31.05.2022, shortlisted candidates were called for verification of original documents between 13.06.2022 and 20.06.2022, with a stipulation that all requisite qualifications and experience must be possessed as on 07.02.2022. Subsequently, on 26.08.2022, the list of eligible and ineligible candidates was published, wherein the petitioner was shown as eligible and his name appeared at Serial No. 03 with 61.702 marks. However, on 14.09.2022, after consideration of objections, the authorities issued a revised list wherein the petitioner’s experience marks were omitted, 4 without considering his valid experience certificates. The petitioner submitted objections on 16.09.2022, and thereafter reminder representations on 29.09.2022 and 14.11.2022, requesting inclusion of his experience and corresponding marks, but no action was taken. Eventually, on 18.01.2023, a seven-member committee issued the final merit list wherein the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 2 and was held eligible. On the same date, the final selection list was also published, in which one Chaman Lal was selected and placed at Serial No. 1, while the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 1 of the waiting list, thereby aggrieving the petitioner and giving rise to the present proceedings. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the governing recruitment rules and conditions prescribed in the notification. It is contended that Condition No. 5 of the recruitment notification dated 05.01.2022 clearly stipulates that experience marks, up to a maximum of 10, are to be awarded to candidates who have worked on contract, daily wages or ad-hoc basis in any Government Hospital, Semi-Government body, Corporation or Board, upon production of valid appointment orders and experience certificates issued by the employer. Similarly, Condition No. 4 of the press notification dated 31.05.2022 unequivocally mandates that the candidate must possess the requisite educational qualification, experience and other eligibility criteria as on 07.02.2022, the last date prescribed for submitting the online application. The petitioner, at the time of applying for the post of Senior Technician (Electrical), 5 possessed more than six years of relevant experience in maintenance, repair, installation and operation of solar plants, having continuously served under CREDA since October 2016, which is duly certified through experience certificates dated 19.08.2021 and 07.02.2022. In light of these conditions, the petitioner was entitled to the full 10 marks for experience. It is further submitted that the recruitment process itself has been conducted under Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Medical Education Department Non-Ministerial Class III Service Recruitment Rules, 2015, which governs the method of direct recruitment, and in terms of Schedule-II thereof, the post in question is required to be filled through direct recruitment. Despite the petitioner fulfilling all eligibility norms, the respondents have failed to consider his valid experience and award the corresponding marks, resulting in clear violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner has already made a detailed representation for redressal of his grievance before the competent authority; therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to pursue his pending representation, with liberty to file a fresh petition if any exigency arise. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner, however, he submits that he has no objection to the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner for pursuing his representation before the concerned authority. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6 6. In view of the above, the Court disposes of the petition with the directions that the petitioner is hereby permitted to pursue his representation before the concerned authority. The authority is directed to decide the representation within a reasonable time frame, not exceeding 8 weeks from the date of this order, in accordance with the recruitment rules and applicable laws. In the event that the petitioner is aggrieved by the outcome of the representation, he is at liberty to file a fresh petition before this Court, if any exigency arise. 7. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. Sd/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE