1 CGHC010194582023 2026:CGHC:29747 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4026 of 2023 1 - Naseeba Sahu W/o Toman Lal Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Chilhati Korar, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Joint Director Medical And Health Service Bastar Division Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Pooja Sahu Working As Staff Nurse At Primary Health Centre Tiriya District Bastar Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Amishan Hussain, Advocate For State/Resp. Nos.1 & 2 For Respondent No.3 : : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer with Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, Panel Lawyer Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani and Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocates. (Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order On Board 14/07/2026 RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.07.16 10:39:27 +0530 2 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the order dated 27.06.2022 (Annexure P-1), which is an appointment order issued by respondent No.2, and the selection list (Annexure P-2) for appointment to the post of Staff Nurse in Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, whereby respondent No.3 has been appointed to the said post. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that, pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.12.2021 (Annexure P-3) issued by respondent No.2 for appointment to the post of ‘Staff Nurse’ in Bastar Division, the petitioner and private respondent No.3 submitted their applications along with all necessary documents. After scrutiny of the applications and consideration of the claims and objections, the final merit list (page 32 of the writ petition) was prepared, and respondent No.3 was selected and appointed to the post of Staff Nurse under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. Thereafter, the select list (Annexure P-2) was published and appointment order for private respondent No.3 and other candidates was issued vide Annexure P-1 dated 27.06.2022. Although the petitioner had also applied for appointment under the OBC category for said post, she was not selected. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the list (page 28 of the writ petition) prepared after consideration of claims and 3 objections, the claim of private respondent No.3 was rejected, as indicated by the endorsement “ ” अमान्य , whereas the petitioner’s claim was accepted, as indicated by the endorsement “ ” मान्य . Despite that, in the final merit list (page 32 of the writ petition), the name of respondent No.3, Pooja Sahu, was included as an eligible candidate. It is contended that the experience certificate submitted by respondent No.3 was not in accordance with the terms of advertisement, as it pertained to period beyond that prescribed therein. Therefore, respondent No.3 was not eligible for appointment to the post of Staff Nurse, and her appointment is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, since the experience certificate submitted by respondent No.3 Pooja Sahu was not accepted as it was not in accordance with the terms of the advertisement and pertained to a period beyond that prescribed, her appointment is contrary to the conditions of the advertisement. It is argued that respondent No.3 did not possess the requisite experience and, therefore, her appointment is illegal. Hence, it is prayed that the writ petition may be allowed, the appointment of respondent No.3 may be quashed by setting aside Annexure P-1 and P-2 to the extent of respondent No.3, and the respondents may be directed to appoint the petitioner. 5. Respondent Nos.1 & 2/State has filed reply. Learned State counsel submits that, under the advertisement, candidates possessing the prescribed experience were entitled to a maximum 4 of 10 bonus marks. Although respondent No. 3 claimed to have 36 months' experience as a Staff Nurse, the experience certificate submitted by her was not in conformity with the terms of the advertisement. Consequently, she was not awarded any bonus marks under the head of experience in the final merit list (page 32 of the writ petition) and was assigned zero marks under that head. In contrast, the petitioner had submitted an experience certificate in accordance with the terms of the advertisement and was, therefore, awarded 10 bonus marks. She further submitted that, even after awarding zero marks for experience to respondent No. 3, she secured a total of 77.35 marks, whereas the petitioner secured only 76.12 marks. Thus, respondent No. 3 was found to be more meritorious than the petitioner in the OBC category and was rightly appointed to the post of Staff Nurse. It is further submitted that the appointment of respondent No. 3 was made in a fair and transparent manner and strictly in accordance with the terms of the advertisement and the applicable rules. Hence, the writ petition liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. As per Clause 4 of the terms and conditions of the advertisement (Annexure P-3), a maximum of 10 bonus marks has to be awarded to candidates possessing the requisite experience in accordance with the terms of the advertisement. Clause 4 of the advertisement is reproduced as under:- 5 “4. किसी भी शासीय / अर्धशासीय/ किगमा / माण्डल मा सीकिदा/ दाकि त तदार्थ कियक्तित पर यरत ! अभी  अ दा" जाग बशात आदा जिजासी पदा पर आदा किय है उसी पदा  यभी प्रमाण पत्र है! चाकिहैए। अभी  लिलए अधिर्धतमा 10 अ किर्धरिरत है2, छत्ती सीगढ़ शासी ल! स्स्थ्य ए परिरर ल्यण किभीग  आदाशा क्रमा एफ 1- 67 / 2021 सीत्रहै / ए दिदा 07.12.2021  असीर !र! शाकि माहैमार  दा<र छoगo रज्य  शासीय स्स्थ्य सीस्थाओं मा कियत ए 6 माहै त लगतर सी दा ल अस्थाय स्स्थ्य र्मिमाAयB ! तCत य ग  पदाB पर चाय हैत 10 ब!सी अ  लभी दिदाय जायग। किय! त द्वार जार अभी प्रमाण पत्र है मान्य किय जायग । अभी प्रमाण पत्र  सीर्थ कियक्तित आदाशा  प्रकित सीत्यप  दा<र प्रस्तत र आश्य है। किजा सीस्था द्वार प्रदात्ती अभी प्रमाण पत्र मान्य ” हैG है!ग। 8. Although, in the list (page 28 of the writ petition) prepared after consideration of claims/objections, the Selection Committee endorsed the word "अमान्य" against the name of respondent No. 3, Pooja Sahu, and the word "मान्य" against the name of the petitioner, the endorsement "अमान्य" in respect of respondent No. 3 does not signify rejection of her candidature. Rather, it only indicates that the experience certificate submitted by her was not found to be eligible for grant of bonus marks, and accordingly, her claim for such marks was rejected. In contrast, the petitioner's experience certificate was found to be in accordance with the terms of the advertisement, and she was accordingly awarded 10 bonus marks. However, respondent No. 3 was not awarded any marks under the experience category. A perusal of the final merit 6 list (page 32 of the writ petition) shows that the petitioner, Naseeba Sahu, secured a total of 76.12 marks, whereas respondent No. 3, Pooja Sahu, secured 77.35 marks, which is higher than the petitioner's score. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 was appointed to the post of Staff Nurse under the OBC category, while the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 1 in the waiting list. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned appointment order dated 27.06.2022 (Annexure P-1) and the selection list (Annexure P-2). Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. 10. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar