1 2026:CGHC:22261 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5883 of 2022 * - Sudaru Poyam S/o Kuma Poyam Aged About 24 Years R/o Bade Kilepar No. 3, Block Bastanar, Tahsil Bastanar, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mantralya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Joint Director Office Of The Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Junior Staff Selection Board, Bastar Through It's Chairman, Junior Staff Selection Board, Bastar Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12/05/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for records of the case from the respondent no. 3 and 4. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to consider the selection & appointment Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.05.13 18:59:53 +0530 2 of the petitioner on the post of Lab-Technician by providing benefit of reservation on divyang category. 10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Mr. Vikas Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that an Advertisement was floated by respondent No. 3 on 31.12.2021 to fill up various posts including 49 posts of Lab Technicians. He would contend that the petitioner is a physically challenged person OA (One Arm) with 40% disability and 03 posts out of 49 posts were reserved for physically handicapped candidates, particularly candidates having disability with both legs and hearing handicapped (BL & HH). He would submit that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process and thereafter final select list was published, but name of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent authorities. He would contend that though three posts of Lab Technicians were earmarked for candidates for BL & HH disability, but according to the provisions of Section 34 (2) of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short ‘Act 2016’), the authorities should have interchanged the category as the candidates with BL & HH were not available. He would further submit that the posts are still lying vacant with the department and therefore, a representation was made by the petitioner to consider his claim in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 (2) of the Act 2016, but till date no decision has been taken. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would oppose. He would submit that 03 posts of Lab Technicians are reserved for persons with 3 disability, particularly BL & HH, whereas the petitioner is suffering from OA (One Arm) disability, therefore, his name was not considered by the respondent authorities. He would contend that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Admittedly, 03 posts of Lab Technicians were earmarked for BL & HH category, whereas the petitioner belongs to OA category, therefore, his name was not considered for selection. 6. Be that as it may, as the representation of petitioner is pending consideration before respondent No. 3, therefore, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation before respondents No. 1 and 3 and those respondents are directed to consider the representation so made by the petitioner keeping in mind the provisions of Section 34(2) of the Act 2016 within outer limit of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid direction(s) / observation(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti