1 2026:CGHC:25933 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4558 of 2026 Maneshwar Lal Gajbiye Son Of Shri Gajanand Gajbiye Aged About 33 Years R/o House No.145 -Kha, Post -Pandripani Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director, Directorate Of Medical Edeucation, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Collector, North Bastar Kanker, District -Kanker (C.G.) 4. The Dean, Office Of Government Medical College Kanker, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 5. The Chief Medical And Health Officer North Bastar Kanker District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 6. The Joint Director Cum Hospital Superintendent Of Indira Gandhi Memorial, Government Medical College Affiliated Government Komaldev District Hospital, In Fornt Of Head Post Office North Bastar Kanker , District North Bastar Kanker( C.G.) 7. Chaman Lal S/omanashiv, Working Senior Technician Electrical, Office Of Joint Director Cum Hospital Superintendent Of Late Indira Gandhi Memorial, Government Medical College Affiliated Government Komaldev District Hospital, In Fornt Of Head Post Office North Bastar Kanker , District North Bastar Kanker( C.G.) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.06.25 17:46:50 +0530 2 8. Pranab Mandal S/o Shri Prashant Mandal Working Senior Technician Mechanical Officer Of Joint Cum Hospital Superintendent Of Indira Gandhi Memorial, Government Medical College Affiliated Government Komaldev District Hospital, In Fornt Of Head Post Office North Bastar Kanker , District North Bastar Kanker( C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Garry Mukhopadhyay, Adl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 24.06.2026 1. By the present writ petition the petitioner is seeking quashment of order dated 13.02.2026 (Annexure P-18) and also sought a direction towards the respondent authorities to award additional 10 marks for work experience and also sought quashment of the order of appointment issued in favour of respondent No. 7. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Senior Technician (Electrical) has been rejected vide order dated 13.02.2026. He submits that the petitioner was possessing the requisite experience certificate and other educational qualification as prescribed under the advertisement and, therefore, was entitled to the additional 10 marks earmarked for candidates possessing such experience. Referring to the disposal statement of claims and objections 3 issued by Government Medical College, Kanker, he submits that the petitioner had the requisite experience certificate at the time of settlement of claims and objections; however, his candidature has been rejected on the ground that at the time of document verification he could not submit the copy of the experience certificate. Learned counsel further submits that in the case of one Pranab Mandal, whose grievance was also considered at the stage of disposal of claims and objections, the experience certificate was taken into account and the additional marks were granted, whereas the petitioner has been denied similar benefit, thereby rendering the action of the respondents arbitrary and discriminatory. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel, on instructions, referring to the advertisement dated 05.01.2022 and Clause 4 of the applicable Rules, submits that production of original documents pertaining to educational qualification and experience certificate at the time of document verification was mandatory. He further submits that even in the notice issued by the respondents calling the candidates for verification, it was specifically mentioned that no candidate would be permitted to produce, at a subsequent stage, any document which was required to be produced at the time of verification. Learned State counsel further submits that the case of Pranab Mandal stands on a different footing inasmuch as he had submitted his experience certificate at the time of verification and only raised an objection regarding non-award of appropriate 4 marks, which was thereafter considered. In the present case, however, the petitioner himself admits that at the time of document verification he was unable to produce the original experience certificate for one or other reason. Therefore, according to learned State counsel, the petitioner having failed to produce the requisite document at the relevant stage, is not entitled to claim the benefit of additional bonus marks and the rejection of his candidature is in accordance with the terms of the advertisement and the governing rules. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From perusal of the pleadings and the submissions advanced, it is evident that the requirement of producing the original documents, including the experience certificate, at the time of verification was specifically prescribed under the advertisement as well as in the notice issued by the respondents. The petitioner does not dispute that he was unable to produce the requisite experience certificate in proper form at the time of document verification. Once the governing conditions clearly stipulated that documents not produced at the time of verification would not be entertained subsequently. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner, having failed to produce the requisite experience certificate at the stage of document verification as 5 mandated under the advertisement and the notice issued by the respondents, cannot claim the benefit of bonus marks or challenge the consequential rejection of his candidature. No illegality, arbitrariness or perversity is made out in the action of the respondents warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti