1 2025:CGHC:60664 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8506 of 2023 1 - Jyoti Patel D/o Pushpendra Patel Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Chata, Post Nagarda, Tehsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health Department, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Office Of Chief Medical And Health Officer, Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Anand Bajaj, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State :- Mr. Sakib Ahmed, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 12.12.2025 1. The instant petition is being preferred before this Hon'ble Court for rejection of the application for the post of ANM (Auxiliary Nurse and Midwifery) submitted by the petitioner and she was declared disqualified with the reasoning that her residence certificate is not VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 issued by the competent authority of District Baloda Bazar, though, it is undisputed that after her marriage the petitioner is resident of Baloda Bazar and residence certificate has also been issued from the competent authority of Distt. Baloda Bazar. So, her candidature has wrongly been rejected declaring her as a disqualified candidate. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this illegal rejection for the application submitted by the petitioner which has been informed by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure P/2) may kindly set aside and the petitioner may kindly be permitted to appear in the interview for the post of ANM at Distt. Baloda Bazar, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 3. Facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement dated 14.09.2022 inviting applications for the post of ANM with the last date of submission being 22.09.2022, and the Petitioner applied accordingly (Annexure P/1). During scrutiny, an objection was raised regarding the Petitioner’s residence 3 certificate. The Petitioner submits that she was married on 19.06.2022 at Baloda Bazar and since her marriage she has been residing at Baloda Bazar, for which she obtained and submitted a residence certificate issued on the basis of her residence after marriage. However, despite submitting the said certificate, the authorities did not consider it and declared the Petitioner disqualified on the ground that the residence certificate was not issued by the competent authority of District Baloda Bazar. The Petitioner was informed of her disqualification through a communication issued by the respondent authorities. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that that the action of the Respondents in disqualifying the Petitioner from the selection process for the post of ANM is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the Petitioner had duly submitted a valid residence certificate issued by the competent authority of District Baloda Bazar in response to the objection raised during scrutiny. Despite this, the Respondents, without proper verification and without affording any meaningful opportunity of hearing, mechanically disqualified the Petitioner on the erroneous ground that the residence certificate was not issued by the competent authority. Learned counsel submits that the Petitioner, being married on 19.06.2022 and residing continuously at Baloda Bazar thereafter, was fully entitled to obtain a residence certificate from the competent authority of that district, and therefore, the rejection of the said certificate is arbitrary and 4 violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the Petitioner fulfills all eligibility conditions for the post of ANM and was entitled to be permitted to participate in the interview. The denial of such opportunity amounts to denial of equal opportunity in public employment and reflects a discriminatory approach adopted by the Respondents. Learned counsel contends that the Respondents have misinterpreted the recruitment procedure and acted contrary to settled principles of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness which govern public employment. It is therefore prayed that the Respondents be directed to treat the Petitioner’s residence certificate as valid, to consider her candidature, and to permit her to appear in the interview for the post of ANM. Hence, the petition deserved to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and submits that the petitioner was disqualified strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules. It is submitted that the residence certificate produced by the petitioner did not meet the prescribed eligibility criteria, as it was not issued in accordance with the norms applicable for determining ordinary residence as on the relevant cut-off date. Mere marriage or recent residence at Baloda Bazar does not automatically confer entitlement to a valid residence certificate for recruitment purposes. It is further submitted that the petitioner was given due opportunity during 5 scrutiny, and after verification, the authorities found the certificate to be invalid and improperly issued, warranting rejection of her candidature. The selection process must adhere to the notified criteria, and no relaxation can be granted. Accordingly, it is submitted that the action of the Respondents is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, and the petitioner has no right to participate in the interview without fulfilling the eligibility conditions. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From a perusal of the record and the pleadings, it is apparent that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the sole ground that she had not submitted a residential (residence/domicile) certificate along with her application, as expressly required by the terms and conditions of the recruitment advertisement dated 14.09.2023. The advertisement dated 14.09.2023 constituted the statutory and contractual framework governing the recruitment process. The eligibility conditions and the list of documents to be submitted along with the application were unambiguously set out therein. A candidate’s compliance with those conditions including production of the prescribed residential certificate was a pre- condition to enable participation in further stages of the selection process. The record does not disclose that the petitioner had in fact produced the prescribed residential certificate within the time 6 and in the manner mandated by the advertisement. The only document placed on record in support of the petitioner’s claim is a certificate which, even if considered, was not filed with the application as required. The consequence of non-compliance with a mandatory condition set out in the advertisement is the disqualification of candidature; such disqualification is a direct and foreseeable result of failure to satisfy the document requirement. 8. The competent authority entrusted with scrutiny of applications and conduct of the recruitment namely, the Office of the Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO), Baloda Bazar–Bhatapara — exercised its functions by examining the documents submitted with the applications. There is no material on record to show that the authority acted mala fide, or with arbitrariness, or failed to follow the prescribed procedure while rejecting the petitioner’s application. In particular, there is nothing to indicate that the authority treated the petitioner differently from other candidates similarly placed. 9. The Court has carefully considered whether the petitioner was denied any opportunity to cure the defect or to produce the residential certificate at a later stage. The material on record does not disclose any specific communication from the petitioner seeking condonation or any request made to the authority to accept the certificate after the closing date. In the absence of such a request and in the absence of any statutory provision or 7 administrative direction permitting post-closing date cure, the authority was entitled to treat the application as incomplete and to reject it. It is further recorded that the process of recruitment has since been concluded and, on the material before this Court, there is no vacancy remaining which could be usefully filled by permitting belated participation of the petitioner. Restoration of candidature at this stage would necessarily disturb the concluded selection process and prejudice other candidates whose selection has been finalized in accordance with the notified procedure. 10. Thus, the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature was occasioned by non-compliance with a mandatory requirement contained in the advertisement dated 14.09.2023, and the rejection was effected by the competent authority in the course of the prescribed scrutiny. No illegality, patent unfairness or arbitrariness is made out on the present record which would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha 8