1 2026:CGHC:14639 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3973 of 2018 1 - Bhaiyya Rakesh Pratap Singh S/o Shri Ramayan Singh, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kewra, Gandhi Chowk, Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 2 - Anand Kumar Unjan S/o Shri Devnath Unjan, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bhauradand, Uparpara, Tahsil Seetapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Rakesh Tirki S/o Shri Ramkumar, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Deogadh Majhapara, Seetapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Sumesh Singh Paikra S/o Shri Budheshwar Ram Paikra, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Sarmana, Post Sedam, Tahsil Batauli, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Vikesh Kumar S/o Shri Prahlad Saay, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village And Post Bargideeh Dahurpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Sandeep Lakra S/o Shri Sardaar Ram Lakra, Aged About 25 Years R/o Darima Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Seretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Police Station Rakhi, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Divisional Joint Director Health Services, Surguja Division, Ambikapur Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jashpur District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPS No. 4030 of 2018 Ashish Kerketta S/o Anthony Kerketta, Aged About 24 Years R/o Ambikapur, District Surguja Posted As Rural Health Organizer At Primary Health Center, Chhindkalo, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralay, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) with WPS No. 4248 of 2018 Matan Say S/o Shri Amtarhia Say Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Jajga Dokanara, Tahsil Udaipur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 3 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Police Station Rakhi, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2- Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Surguja Division, Ambikapur Chhattisgarh. 3- Chief Medical And Health Officer, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4- Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jashpur District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, Advocate For State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27/03/2026 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.05.2018 (Annexure P/8) issued by respondent No. 2, whereby the appointments of the petitioners on the post of Rural Health Coordinator have been cancelled on the ground that they were appointed contrary to the service rules. 2. Mr. Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Rural Health Coordinators pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.07.2016. He would further argue that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process and thereafter the merit list was published. He would also argue that the names of the petitioners were in the waiting list and the orders of appointment were issued in their favour on 24.11.2017 by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Surguja. 4 3. He would contend that respondent No. 2, without affording any opportunity of hearing, cancelled the appointment orders of the petitioners vide order dated 23.05.2018. He would further contend that right has been accrued in favour of the petitioners as they were appointed pursuant to the advertisement issued by the competent authority; thus, he would pray to quash the cancellation order dated 23.05.2018. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaswant Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2002) 9 Supreme Court Cases 700. 4. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and submit that the petitioners were appointed after the expiry of the validity of the waiting list. He would further submit that the appointment of the petitioners were made from the waiting list and same is against the condition No.12 & 16 of the advertisement dated 23.05.2018, therefore, the appointment order has been cancelled. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Admittedly, an advertisement was issued for the post of Rural Health Coordinator. The petitioners submitted their application forms and were called to participate in the examination conducted by CG Vyapam, thereafter, merit list was prepared. The names of the petitioners were found in the waiting list. Respondents No. 3 and 4 issued orders of appointment in favour of the petitioners. It is informed by counsel for the petitioners that by virtue of interim orders, the petitioners are still working on the post of Rural Health Coordinator. 7. Jaswant Singh (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar issue, held that if an opportunity of hearing is not afforded, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. The relevant paragraph No. 7 is reproduced as under: 5 “7. The appellants having been appointed pursuant to the order of the Panchayat and having been continued as LDC since February 1987, no order under sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the Adhiniyam could have been passed by the Collector without affording the opportunity of hearing to them. Admittedly, the opportunity of hearing has not been given. The impugned order of cancellation, therefore, stands vitiated. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court as well as the order of cancellation passed by the Collector.” 8. Perusal of the order dated 23.05.2018 would show that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners and the order was passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and law, the order dated 23.05.2018 pertaining to the petitioners is hereby quashed. The respondents would be at liberty to take a fresh decision after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 10.The authorities would be at liberty to conclude the proceedings and take decision within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11.The petitioners would be at liberty to submit relevant documents before the authority concerned. 12.The interim order granted earlier shall continue for the said period. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim