1 CGHC010349462021 2026:CGHC:27496 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7189 of 2021  Rahul Kumar S/o Chandrapal Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Sumedha, P. O. Balgi Project, Police Station Banki Mongra, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Director, Directorate Of Health Service, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Medical Health Officer, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh 5. Chandrakant Ukey Multipurpose Health Worker, Presently Posted At Sub Health Center, Batra, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek S. Ojha, P.L. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 3.7.2026 2 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ of certiorari setting aside the the appointment of respondent no. 5 made vide order dated 30.12.2020 issued by C.M.H.O. Korba; (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to set-aside the appointment of respondent no. 5; (iii) Pass any other order the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice. 2) Facts of present case are that Directorate of Health Services, State of Chhattisgarh issued an advertisement on 14.8.2020 for filling up 39 vacant posts of Multi-purpose Health Worker (MPW), Male in District Korba. Clause 1 of the advertisement deals with education qualifications and according to it, the candidate must possess : (i) higher secondary mark-sheet with 50% marks along with Biology subject ; (ii) one year diploma in Multi-purpose Health Worker course or equivalent certification and (iii) valid registration with Chhattisgarh Paramedical Council. Clause 21.3 deals with marks for experience. According to this clause, a candidate would be entitled for three marks for having one worked for one year in a health institution, maximum up to 15 marks. 3) Petitioner, respondent No. 5 and other eligible candidates participated in the recruitment process. After completion of recruitment process, merit list was published wherein respondent No. 5 secured first position in Scheduled Caste category whereas petitioner secured first position in Wait List of Scheduled Caste category. Petitioner has alleged that respondent No. 5 has 3 wrongly been selected against the advertised post as he has been wrongly granted six marks for work experience whereas he completed his diploma in Multi-purpose Health Worker course on 9.9.2019. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 5 completed his diploma in Multi-purpose Health Worker course on 9.9.2019 therefore he never gained experience for the post of Multi-purpose Health Worker (Male) prior to the issuance of advertisement. She further submits that in other districts also, marks for experience were not awarded to the candidates who had worked in health institutions prior to attaining their respective diplomas but the selection committee failed to consider this aspect while granting six marks for experience to respondent No. 5. She also submits that Non-Ministerial Par-Medical and Nursing (Directorate of Health Services) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2013 does not provide for grant of marks for work experience. She prays to allow this writ petition. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They submit that advertisement specifically provided for grant of 3 marks for having worked in a health institution for a year and respondent No. 5 had worked in a health institution from 1.12.2011 to 31.3.2014 i.e. 2 years 3 months and 30 days therefore respondent authorities rightly granted six marks for work experience. They further submit that 4 petitioner participated in the recruitment process knowing very well the terms and conditions of the advertisement and after being unsuccessful, he has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 5 therefore this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7) Admittedly, petitioner and respondent No. 5 applied for appointment to the post of Multi-purpose Health Worker (MPW). On the date of advertisement, respondent No. 5 possessed diploma in Multi-purpose Health Worker course and he had experience of working in a health institution for more than two years and he submitted experience certificate along with the application form. Selection committee after due scrutiny of the experience certificate awarded six marks to respondent No. 5 for work experience according to Clause 21.3 of the advertisement. 8) The condition with regard to grant of marks for experience is clearly mentioned in the advertisement and same was within the knowledge of the petitioner prior to submission of application form. Petitioner knowing very well the conditions of the advertisement applied for the advertised post and participated in the recruitment process therefore petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the outcome of recruitment process after being unsuccessful. 5 9) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anupal Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department and Others1, while dealing with the similar issue in paragraphs 55 to 61, held as under: “55. Having participated in the interview, the private respondents cannot challenge the Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2014 and the selection. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that after the revised notification dated 12.10.2014, the private respondents participated in the interview without protest and only after the result was announced and finding that they were not selected, the private respondents chose to challenge the revised notification dated 12.10.2014 and the private respondents are estopped from challenging the selection process. It is a settled law that a person having consciously participated in the interview cannot turn around and challenge the selection process. 56. Observing that the result of the interview cannot be challenged by a candidate who has participated in the interview and has taken the chance to get selected at the said interview and ultimately, finds himself to be unsuccessful, in Madan Lal and Others v. State of J&K and Others (1995) 3 SCC 486, it was held as under:- “9. ….. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance 1. (2020) 2 SCC 173 6 both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. …..” 57. In K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others (2006) 6 SCC 395, it was held as under:- 73. The appellant-petitioners having participated in the interview in this background, it is not open to the appellant-petitioners to turn round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contend that the provision of a minimum mark for the interview was not proper……..”. 58. In Union of India and Others v. S. Vinodh Kumar and Others (2007) 8 SCC 100, it was held as under:- “19. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla (2002) 6 SCC 127, it was further observed:- “34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not ‘palatable’ to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process.” 59. Same principle was reiterated in Sadananda Halo and Others v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and Others (2008) 4 SCC 619 wherein, it was held as under:- 7 “59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100 ……The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986 Supp SCC 285, where it has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise……..” 61. The private respondents knew that by the revised notification dated 12.10.2014, the number of vacancies of different categories have been changed and knowing the same, they participated in the interview and have taken a chance and opportunity thereon without any protest. Having participated in the interview and having failed in the final selection, it is not open to the private respondents to turn around and challenge the revised notification dated 12.10.2014 and the revised requisition of the number of vacancies in different categories. Having regard to the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court, the High Court should not have granted any relief to the private respondents/intervenors.” 10) Ms. Soren has contended that in other districts, marks for experience were not awarded to the candidates who had work experience prior to completion of diploma course but on this 8 ground alone, the entire recruitment process or the appointment of respondent No. 5 cannot be interfered with. 11) In view of the aforesaid legal principles established by the Apex Court and the discussion made herein-above, no case is made for interference. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.07.09 18:19:07 +0530