1 2026:CGHC:208 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7196 of 2023 1 - Ramanuj Lal Verma S/o Jeevrakhan Lal Verma Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 33 K, Dumardeeh Kala, District : Rajnandgaon, 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 Services 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 : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Navoday Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. R. K. Kashyap, Advocate For State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 02/01/2026 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 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 (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.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that in the year 2012, the Chief Medical and Health Officers of various districts in the State of Chhattisgarh, including District Durg, issued advertisements inviting applications for appointment to the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) [MPHW (M)], prescribing, inter alia, Class 10th qualification, one- year MPHW training from a State-recognized institute and registration with the Chhattisgarh Paramedical Council. Being duly qualified, the petitioner applied for the said post from District Durg and was included in the select list issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Durg, at Serial No. 39; however, no appointment order was issued. The selection process was thereafter subjected to extensive litigation, including WPS (S) No. 666/2012 and several connected writ petitions, wherein the eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisements and the equivalence of paramedical training with MPHW (M) training were challenged. Although this Court initially declined to draw equivalence between MPHW (M) and paramedical qualifications, during pendency of the litigation, the Commissioner, Health Services, Raipur, issued a clarification dated 31.08.2013 declaring one-year paramedical training as equivalent to one-year MPHW training. Subsequent writ appeals, 3 including WA No. 530/2013 and WA No. 109/2015, were disposed of by the Division Bench granting liberty to the petitioners to submit representations in light of the policy decision taken by the State Government. In compliance thereof, the petitioner and similarly situated candidates submitted repeated representations between 2014 and 2019, pursuant to which the Department of Health and Family Welfare initiated correspondence and internal deliberations. Notably, the Secretary of the Department, by a note dated 05.10.2018, recommended consideration of the petitioners for appointment with one-time age relaxation, which was approved by the concerned Minister on 13.10.2018. Despite the lapse of several years and repeated directions of this Court to decide the representations expeditiously, no final decision was communicated, compelling the petitioner to file Revision Petition No. 149 of 2021, which came to be dismissed on 10.02.2022. Ultimately, the respondent authorities passed the impugned order dated 05.01.2023 rejecting the petitioner’s representation on the ground of passage of time and alleged legal complexities, which, according to the petitioner, is arbitrary, and unreasonable. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court had, as far back as in the year 2014, directed the respondent authorities to decide the petitioner’s representation expeditiously; however, the authorities acted with complete indifference and inordinate delay, taking nearly eight years to arrive at a decision, for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. It is contended that the petitioner pursued the matter diligently and continuously by submitting repeated representations, and the delay is solely attributable to administrative apathy, which ought not 4 to be permitted to ruin the petitioner’s career. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the petitioner possesses all the requisite qualifications for appointment, yet due to the lethargic and arbitrary approach of the respondents, the petitioner’s future has been placed in jeopardy. It is pointed out that similarly situated candidates, who had completed one-year paramedical training instead of MPHW (M) training, have already been appointed in other Districts under the very same advertisement of the year 2012, and such appointments were made with reference to the writ petitions pending or decided by this Court. The material obtained under the Right to Information Act, including appointment orders, merit lists and official memos, clearly demonstrate that candidates with paramedical qualifications were selectively appointed, thereby revealing adoption of a pick-and-choose policy and application of different yardsticks in different Districts, which is ex facie arbitrary and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submits that the respondents have not only caused serious prejudice to the petitioner by delaying compliance of the Court’s directions, but have also sought to circumvent the same under the pretext that no specific time limit was fixed by the Court. It is further contended that the impugned rejection of the petitioner’s representation is founded merely on an apprehension of legal complexities, which cannot be a lawful or sustainable ground to deny a vested and legitimate claim, as candidature can be rejected only on grounds of lack of qualification, merit or fitness. Lastly, it is submitted that even as on date, vacancies against the advertisement dated 04.05.2012 are available and appointments made in the year 2012 were themselves subject to the outcome of the litigation; therefore, 5 there exists no legal impediment in considering and appointing the petitioner, and the impugned action of the respondents deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned State Counsel, opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is legal, justified and in accordance with the governing rules and policy decisions of the State. It is contended that mere inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the select list or possession of requisite qualifications does not confer any vested or indefeasible right to appointment. Learned State Counsel submits that the issue relating to equivalence of paramedical training with MPHW (M) training was the subject matter of prolonged litigation, and during the pendency thereof, the State authorities were constrained from taking any final decision. The delay, if any, was bona fide and occasioned due to judicial proceedings and administrative exigencies, and cannot be construed as arbitrariness or mala fides. It is further submitted that the alleged appointments made in other districts were strictly in accordance with applicable orders, policies and factual circumstances prevailing therein, and do not create any enforceable right in favour of the petitioner. Learned State Counsel further contends that the representation of the petitioner has been duly considered and rejected by a reasoned order, taking into account the passage of time and the legal complexities involved, and no violation of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India is made out. It is, therefore, submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 5. This Court has carefully considered the pleadings on record, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the 6 documents relied upon. 6. The present writ petition raises issues which are identical in facts as well as in law to those already adjudicated by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, with W.P.S. No.1953 of 2023 treated as the lead case, decided vide detailed order dated 19.12.2025. The grievance of the petitioner herein is also directed against the rejection of his/her representation seeking appointment to the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) (MPHW (M)) by applying the Chhattisgarh Health and Family Welfare Department Non-Ministerial Para-Medical and Nursing (Directorate Health Services) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2013, with retrospective effect. 7. From a perusal of the pleadings, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, and the stand taken by the learned State Counsel, it is evident that the factual matrix, the reliefs sought, and the legal contentions raised in the present petition are a verbatim reiteration of the issues already examined and decided by this Court in the earlier batch of writ petitions. The petitioner seeks appointment or, in the alternative, compensation, primarily on the ground that the Rules of 2013 ought to be applied retrospectively to an advertisement issued in the year 2012. 8. This Court, in W.P.S. No.1953 of 2023 and other connected matters, has categorically held that the Recruitment Rules of 2013 are prospective in nature and cannot be applied retrospectively to recruitment processes initiated prior to their promulgation. It has further been held that the eligibility criteria prevailing on the date of advertisement alone govern the selection process, and subsequent changes in the rules cannot be imported to confer any vested or 7 enforceable right upon the candidates. The plea of equivalence of paramedical training with MPHW (M) training, the allegation of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation have also been exhaustively considered and rejected by this Court in the earlier order, placing reliance upon binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Court has clearly observed that neither equity nor hardship can override statutory provisions, and no direction can be issued to apply recruitment rules retrospectively in the absence of any express provision to that effect. 9. In the present case as well, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any distinguishing feature, either on facts or in law, which may warrant a departure from the view already taken by this Court in the earlier batch of writ petitions. The impugned order rejecting the representation of the petitioner is found to be in consonance with the statutory framework and the settled legal position, and does not suffer from any arbitrariness, illegality, or perversity so as to call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, and following the ratio and findings recorded by this Court in W.P.S. No.1953 of 2023 and other connected matters decided on 19.12.2025, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is devoid of merit. 11. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE