1 2026:CGHC:804-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 957 of 2025 Dr. Navdeep Shende S/o Shri Jamuna Prasad Shende Aged About 38 Years Resident As Sankar Nagar Ward No. 10 Moti Chowk Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health Services, Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Health Services, 3rd Floor Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Directorate Health Services (Advertisement / Notification) 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Sashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondents/SECL : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07 .01 .2026 1 Heard Mr. Sashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents on I.A. No. 01 of 2025, which is application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal. 2 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3 By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was writ petitioner in the writ petition, has challenged the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.11074/2025 (Dr. Navdeep Shende Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4 Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the petitioner by way of writ petition bearing WPS No. 11074 of 2025 has assailed memo dated 30.11.2022 by which the representation filed by him for appointment to the post of Dentist has been rejected. He has also challenged order dated 12.12.2022 by 3 which it has been informed to the petitioner that whenever advertisement will be issued by the department he may participate in the recruitment. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 19.09.2025. Hence, this appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition without properly appreciating the facts, pleadings, and material documents available on record. The impugned order is contrary to law, arbitrary in nature, and suffers from non-consideration of relevant aspects, and therefore is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Hon’ble Court. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the Petitioner was engaged and had rendered services during the COVID-19 pandemic pursuant to orders passed by the competent authority. Despite discharging his duties during a crucial public health emergency, Respondent No. 02 did not appoint the Petitioner on a regular or continuing basis. The Petitioner also appeared in the Dental Surgeon Examination, 2022, bearing Roll No. 2209102749 and Serial No.1525 under the Scheduled Caste category; however, his name did not figure in the final selection list. It was contended that similarly situated and less meritorious candidates were appointed, whereas the Petitioner was unjustly deprived of selection. His representations in this regard were also rejected without assigning cogent reasons. 4 6 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Petitioner is duly qualified, holding a Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) degree obtained in the year 2018 with 57.43% marks from Government Dental College and Hospital, Raipur (C.G.). He has also completed one year of compulsory residential internship from the same institution. The Petitioner is a registered dental practitioner under the Dentists Act, 1948, bearing Registration No. 3397, and possesses a valid registration certificate duly issued by the competent authority. These qualifications and credentials were not in dispute and ought to have been duly considered. It was further submitted that vide order dated 26.04.2021, issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Raipur, the Petitioner was appointed as Dental Surgeon for a period of three months, considering his qualifications and the emergent requirement during the pandemic. However, upon completion of the said tenure, his services were discontinued abruptly and without any cogent or justifiable reason, despite the continued requirement of dental professionals and availability of vacant posts. He contended that during the years 2021 and 2022, keeping in view the Petitioner’s qualifications, the services rendered by him during the pandemic at the risk of his own life, the existence of vacant posts, and the alleged negligent conduct of certain doctors/dentists holding permanent posts, the Petitioner submitted several representations along with all relevant documents seeking appointment either on a regular or ad-hoc basis. However, the said representations were 5 mechanically rejected by the Respondents vide orders dated 30.11.2022 and 12.12.2022, without due application of mind. It was finally submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration the aforesaid facts, documents, and circumstances, and dismissed the writ petition in a mechanical manner. The impugned order thus suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be interfered with by this Court in the interest of justice. 7 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner and submitted that the learned Single Judge has passed a reasoned and lawful order after due consideration of the pleadings, records, and settled principles of law. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality, or perversity warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. It was submitted that the engagement of the Petitioner during the COVID-19 pandemic was purely temporary, contractual, and exigency- based, made in public interest to meet an unprecedented health emergency. The order dated 26.04.2021 itself clearly stipulated that the appointment was for a fixed period of three months, without conferring any right to continuation, regularization, or future appointment. Upon completion of the contractual period, the services of the Petitioner were discontinued strictly in terms of the appointment order, and therefore no legal right accrued in his favour. 6 8 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 9 It is not in dispute that the engagement of the Petitioner as Dental Surgeon vide order dated 26.04.2021 was purely temporary, contractual, and made to meet the emergent situation arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic. The terms of appointment clearly stipulated that the engagement was for a fixed period of three months and did not confer any right of continuation, regularization, or absorption. Once the contractual period came to an end, the Petitioner’s disengagement was strictly in accordance with the terms of appointment, and no legal or enforceable right accrued in his favour. The submission that the Petitioner rendered services during the pandemic and, therefore, was entitled to appointment on a regular or continuing basis cannot be accepted. It is well settled that temporary or contractual engagement, even if made during exigent circumstances, does not create a vested right for regular appointment unless the same is supported by statutory rules or a specific policy, which is conspicuously absent in the present case. 10 With regard to the Dental Surgeon Examination, 2022, the Petitioner admittedly participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the criteria and procedure. Having failed to secure a place in the final merit list, the Petitioner cannot assail the selection merely on the ground that he is qualified or that other 7 candidates were selected. The allegation that less meritorious or favoured candidates were appointed is vague, bald, and unsupported by any cogent material. No specific instance of illegality, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory rules has been demonstrated. Merely possessing the requisite educational qualifications, registration under the Dentists Act, 1948, or prior experience, does not confer any indefeasible right to appointment. Eligibility does not guarantee selection, and the scope of judicial review in matters of recruitment is limited. Courts cannot substitute their own assessment for that of the competent authority or selection body unless the decision-making process is shown to be vitiated by illegality or mala fides. 11 As regards the rejection of the Petitioner’s representations dated 30.11.2022 and 12.12.2022, the same cannot be faulted merely because the decision was adverse to the Petitioner. The Respondent authorities were under no legal obligation to grant appointment dehors the recruitment rules or policy framework. No material has been placed on record to establish that the rejection orders were passed without application of mind or in violation of any statutory provision. Thus, we find that the learned Single Judge has duly considered the pleadings, relevant facts, and the settled principles of law governing temporary appointments and public employment. The conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge are neither arbitrary nor perverse and do not call for interference in appellate jurisdiction. 8 12 In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merit. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra