1 2026:CGHC:25408 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 867 of 2024 Mohd. Hashim S/o Mohd. Jamir Aged About 23 Years R/o Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tah. And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer Distt. Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kamta Prasad Yadaw Posted As Medical Lab Technologist, Community Health Centre, Bilaigarh, Distt. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.06.22 18:38:38 +0530 2 For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 22/06/2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned select list, appointment and posting order dated 05/12/2023 (Annexure P-1), issued in favour of the respondent No.4, and further seeks a direction to the respondents to issue an appointment order in favour of the petitioner on the post of Medical Lab Technologist. 2. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for the post of Medical Lab Technologist pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.06.2022. He submits that under the policy of the State Government dated 07.12.2021 (Annexure P-3), candidates who had worked during the outbreak of COVID-19 Pandemic were entitled to 10 bonus marks upon production of an experience certificate showing continuous engagement for a period of six months during the said period. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had submitted an experience certificate dated 12/01/2022 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO), District Rajnandgaon certifying that the petitioner had worked at Community Health Centre, Chhuriya, District Rajnandgaon from 08.12.2020 to 10.06.2021 during the COVID-19 Pandemic. (b) Learned counsel further submits that in the provisional merit 3 list issued prior to inviting objections, the petitioner was awarded 10 bonus marks on the basis of the said experience certificate and secured 80.84 marks, thereby placing him at Serial No.1. However, while issuing the final merit list, the said 10 bonus marks were withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner had failed to produce the appointment order by which he was engaged during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Consequently, the petitioner was placed at Serial No.9 in the final merit list and respondent No.4 was placed at Serial No.1 and subsequently appointed. He would contend that neither the advertisement nor the policy required production of any appointment order and only the experience certificate issued by the competent authority was prescribed. Therefore, withdrawal of the bonus marks awarded in his favour is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the terms of the advertisement. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.4 submit that the petitioner failed to produce the appointment order under which he was engaged and, therefore, his claim for bonus marks was rightly rejected. It is submitted that the appointment of respondent No.4 on the said post is just and proper. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the writ petition. 5. From perusal of Clause 15(c) of the advertisement dated 15.06.2022, it is evident that candidates claiming 10 bonus marks for having rendered services during the COVID-19 Pandemic were required to submit an experience certificate showing 4 continuous engagement for a period of six months during the said period. The advertisement does not prescribe production of any appointment order as a condition for grant of such bonus marks. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had submitted the experience certificate issued by the CMHO, District Rajnandgaon, which has been annexed as Annexure P-2. It is also apparent from the provisional merit list that the said certificate was duly considered by the respondent authorities and, on that basis, the petitioner was awarded 10 bonus marks and placed at Serial No.1 with 80.84 marks. Respondent No.4, at that stage, had secured only 70.26 marks. 7. The sole reason assigned by the respondents for withdrawal of the bonus marks in the final merit list is that the petitioner failed to produce the appointment order under which he was engaged during the COVID-19 Pandemic. However, neither the advertisement nor the policy governing the recruitment required production of such appointment order. Once the experience certificate issued by the competent authority was accepted and acted upon while preparing the provisional merit list, the bonus marks could not have been withdrawn subsequently on a ground which was never prescribed in the advertisement. 8. It is noteworthy to mention here that the respondent authorities were required to conduct the recruitment process strictly within the four corners of the advertisement. In the case at hand, it is evident that there is no clause in the advertisement requiring the candidates to produce the appointment order under which they 5 were engaged. The only requirement prescribed was submission of an experience certificate certifying that the candidate had rendered service during the outbreak of COVID-19 Pandemic. Therefore, once the petitioner had submitted the requisite experience certificate issued by the competent authority, denial of the benefit of bonus marks on the ground of non-production of the appointment order is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the action of the respondents in withdrawing the 10 bonus marks awarded to the petitioner is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The respondents could not have introduced an additional condition not contemplated under the advertisement after completion of the selection process. The petitioner had fulfilled the requirement prescribed under the advertisement by submitting the requisite experience certificate issued by the competent authority. 10. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of 10 bonus marks claimed by him on the basis of the experience certificate submitted by him. Consequently, the impugned final select list, appointment and posting order dated 05/12/2023 (Annexure P-1), to the extent it denies such benefit to the petitioner, deserves to be interfered with. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to re-evaluate the candidature of the petitioner by granting him 10 bonus marks on the basis of the experience certificate submitted by him and thereafter pass 6 appropriate consequential orders, including issuance of appointment order, if found entitled, within a period of 40 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar