1 CGHC010325712026 2026:CGHC:37579 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6297 of 2026 1 - Arbind Horo S/o Isidore Horo Aged About 35 Years R/o Kuarmunda Horo Niwas Near Kishan Petrol Pump, Kuarmunda, Rourkela Sundargarh (Orissa) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Steel, Udyog Bhawan, Dr. Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi – 11011 2 - Chairman And Managing Director (Cmd) N.M.D.C. Limited (A Govt. Of India Enterprises), Khanij Bhavan, 10-3-311/a Castle Hills, Masab Tank Hyderabad - State Telangana 500 028 3 - Additional General Manager (H.R.) N.M.D.C. Limited, Khanij Bhavan, 10-03-311/a Castle Hills, Masab Tank Hyderabad - State Telangana 500 028 ... Respondents (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Shri Ankush Borkar, Advocate For Union of India : Shri Vidya Bhushan Soni, CGC For Respondent No. 2 & 3 : Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 21.08.2026 1. By the present petition, the petitioner is questioning the impugned cancellation letter dated 11/12/2025 issued by the respondent No.3, whereby the candidature of the petitioner for the post of HEM Operator AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.08.24 10:51:14 +0530 2 Grade-III (Trainee)(RS-04) has been cancelled. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner successfully cleared all stages of the recruitment process for the post of HEM Operator Grade-III (Trainee) (RS-04) at NMDC Limited, including Computer Based Test (CBT), Pre-Trade Test Document Verification (DV) and Trade Test, and was provisionally selected, as evidenced by the Pre-Employment Medical Examination Letter dated 03.11.2025. Despite this, his candidature was cancelled at the stage of medical examination on the ground of eligibility pertaining to statutory learner’s license under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which had already been verified and accepted at an earlier stage. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner may be permitted to submit a fresh, comprehensive representation before Respondent No. 3, and the concerned authority may be directed to consider and take a decision on the representation at the earliest, within a specified time frame. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the grievance of the petitioner is against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, for whom he is not appearing. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 and 3 submits that as the petitioner is only making a prayer to submit a representation before respondent No. 3, he is having no objection. 5. On due consideration of submission of counsel for the petitioner, the nature of grievance raised in the writ petition, the writ petition at this stage is disposed off permitting petitioner to submit fresh comprehensive representation along with all supporting documents 3 before respondent No. 3 and in the event such a representation is submitted, the concerned authority shall consider and take decision on the representation, in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of representation. 6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. SD/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Amardeep