1 2026:CGHC:5891 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3476 of 2019  Dr. Pratibha Agrawal D/o Shri Rajkumar Agrawal Aged About 36 Years R/o Kurud, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, C.G., Presently Asst. Professor In Contract, Medical College Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Secretary Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent No. 1/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03.02 .2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief :- “10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the order dated 29.11.2018 (Annexure P/1) and Clause 5 of corrigendum dated 22.11.2014 (Annexure P/2) which relates to present petitioner. 10.3 This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, direction/directions, order/ orders to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Senior Resident or Assistant Professor of Medical College of Chhattisgarh. 10.4 This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.02.05 16:55:42 +0530 2 the respondent authorities to issue the appointment order in favour of the petitioner for the post of Senior Resident or Assistant Professor of Medical College of Chhattisgarh. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit. 10.6 Cost of the petition.” 2. The facts in brief are that an advertisement was issued by the respondent No 2 on 30.07.2014 for various posts including two post of Senior Resident (Dentist). The minimum eligibility criteria prescribed for the said post was MBBS, registration with the State Medical Register or Indian Medical Register. The eligibility criteria was modified vide corrigendum dated 22.11.2014 and word ‘MBBS’ was substituted with BDS with 3 years teaching experience in Dental College/Institution. The candidature of the petitioner for the post of Senior Resident (Dentist) was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was lacking registration from the concerned Medical Council of India. The petitioner filed WPS No. 3140 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 05.07.2018, wherein, it was held that registration with the Medical Council of India would not be applicable in case of the petitioner for the simple reason that the petitioner is not a candidate with MBBS but is a candidate with BDS and MDS whose registration can only be provided by the Dental Council of India. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner subject to the petitioner’s fulfilling all other requisite qualification, experience and eligibility criteria. The petitioner approached the respondent authorities and the representation made by the petitioner was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 29.11.2018 on the ground that on the date of advertisement, the petitioner was lacking three years experience. 3 3. Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate would submit that in the advertisement three years teaching experience was not a eligibility criteria for Senior Resident (Dentist) and it was inserted subsequently. He would submit that the petitioner participated in the written examination and she was placed at serial No. 1 in the merit list, but during course of the interview her candidature was rejected only on the ground that she was not having registration with the Medical Council of India. He would submit that the observation made by the respondent authorities was brushed up by this Court in WPS No. 3140 of 2017. He would submit that the corrigendum was issued subsequently, and thus, the respondent authorities changed the rule of game during currency of recruitment process. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. They would submit that an advertisement was issued contrary to the provisions of Schedule – III entry No. 42 of the Chhattisgarh Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred as “Rules, 2013”); therefore, a corrigendum was issued, wherein, it was prescribed that minimum three years teaching experience would be necessary for the post of Senior Resident (Dentist). They would contend that the respondent authorities scrutinized the matter of petitioner in detail, and thereafter, took decision vide order dated 29.11.2018 after taking opinion of the experts. They would contend that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. It is true that in advertisement, it was nowhere stated that three years 4 experience would be necessary for the post of Senior Resident (Dentist), but, later on, a corrigendum was issued prescribing such qualification. It is well settled principle of law that any advertisement cannot be floated contrary to the recruitment rules. In the recruitment Rules of 2013 for the post of Senior Resident (Dentist) three years experience is mandatory, and thus, the advertisement was issued contrary to the Rules, 2013, therefore, corrigendum was issued. Though, the petitioner participated in the examination, but it will not confer any right in her favour to claim selection or appointment. 7. The rules of 2013, particularly Schedule – III, entry No. 42 is reproduced herein-below :- 42. Resident/Tutor Dental College 25 ……...do……. 1- Post Graduate Degree in Dentistry Or Graduate in Dentistry with 3 years experience with BDS. 2- Registration in Dental Council 8. Taking into consideration the fact that three years teaching experience is prerequisite for the post of Senior Resident (Dentist) as per the entry No. 42 of Schedule – III and that was missing in the advertisement; therefore, corrigendum was issued. The corrigendum was issued strictly in accordance with the rules governing the field. The representation of the petitioner was rejected in the light of Rules, 2013, therefore, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent No. 2 dated 29.11.2018. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant