1 CGHC010135152021 2026:CGHC:30437 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2742 of 2021 Ku. Namrata Tiwari D/o Shri Balmukund Tiwari Aged About 29 Years R/o Radha Krishna Mandir Chowk, Purani Basti, Tifra, Behind Municipal Council Office Tifra, Ward No. 09, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Director Directorate, Health Services , Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Indravati Bhawan, Third Floor, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Joint Director, Bilaspur Division, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Nutan Chowk, Seepath Road, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Singh, Advocate. For State/ Respondents : Shri Rishabh Chandra Singh Deo, Panel Lawyer. GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2026.07.20 17:53:26 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17/07/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call record from the respondent authority. 10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned advertisement dated 24/05/2021 (Annexure - P/1). 10.3 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authority to publish the proper advertisement to fillup the post of staff nurse through departmental examination from trainee mitanin, as per notification dated 11th June 2020. 10.4 Any other relief may also be granted to the Petitioner which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 24/05/2021 an advertisement was issued for 267 posts of Staff Nurse through limited departmental examination from trained Mitanins. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Staff Nurse on contractual basis by order dated 08/11/2017 at Primary Health Centre, Khaprikala Block Lormi, District Mungeli. Her contractual appointment was extended from time to time and since then she is still working there. She submitted her application form for the post of Staff Nurse, she participated in the recruitment process and name of the petitioner was not considered and therefore the petitioner has claimed direction to the respondent/authorities to consider her name. 3. Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that 267 posts of Staff Nurse were to be filled, 75% posts were to be 3 filled by candidates selected through open competition and remaining 5% from GNM or B.Sc. (Nursing) field/Mitanin through inter departmental competitive examination and remaining 20% was to be filled by promotion on the recommendation of the DPC. He would contend that there was discrepancy in bifurcation of the posts. He would submit that respondent/authorities committed error in bifurcating the posts for direct recruitment, from Mitanin and through promotion and therefore the entire advertisement as well as the entire selection process are bad in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. He would contend that the petitioner was a Staff Nurse appointed on contractual basis and she had right to be considered against 75% through open competition. He would contend that the petitioner participated in the entire recruitment process and being unsuccessful, she has challenged the advertisement and the selection process. He would submit that advertisement was issued on 24/05/2021 for total 5677 posts of Staff Nurse and posts were bifurcated for division Raipur, Bilaspur, Bastar and Sarguja and further classification was made for direct recruitment, from Mitanin and through promotion and chart dated 27/09/2021 prepared in this regard by the office of respondent No.3 is annexed as Annexure R-1. He would submit that there was no discrepancy in bifurcation of vacancies. He would further submit that the petitioner after participating in the entire selection process, has challenged the advertisement, therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Advertisement was issued on 24/05/2021 for total 5677 posts of Staff Nurse. The chart Annexure R-1 would make it clear that posts were bifurcated for division Raipur, Bilaspur, Bastar and Sarguja and further classification was made for direct recruitment, from Mitanin and through promotion. The petitioner in the entire petition has not given any figure and a claim has been made without there being any foundation. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process knowing very well it’s conditions and being unsuccessful, she preferred this petition. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anupal Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department and Others [(2020) 2 SCC 173], 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 5 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 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, 6 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:- “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.” 7 8. Therefore, in the light of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, petitioner is not entitled for relief as sought for. 9. The chart prepared by the office of respondent No.3 dated 27/09/2021 is reproduced herein below:- dzeka d LakHkkx dk uke Lohd`r dk;Zjr fjDr 1 jk;iqj lh/kh HkrhZ ferk fur inksUufr ;ksx lh/kh HkrhZ ferk fuu inksUufr ;ksx lhf/k HkrhZ ferk fuu IknksUufr ;ksx 1478 98 394 1970 1307 0 100 1407 171 98 294 563 2 fcykliqj 1077 57 283 1417 956 0 64 1020 121 57 219 397 3 cLrj 854 56 227 1137 733 0 72 805 121 56 155 332 4 ljxqtk 865 58 230 1153 764 0 68 832 101 58 162 321 ;ksx 4274 269 1134 5677 3760 0 304 4064 514 269 830 1613 10. Perusal of the chart would make it clear that the vacancies were bifurcated division wise and class wise and there is no discrepancy and the petitioner failed to point out any flaw. 11. Having considered the facts discussed above, no case is made out and accordingly the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge gouri