1 CGHC010217852022 2026:CGHC:37181 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4625 of 2022 1 - Deepkiran Sahu W/o Jitendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Nagar Panchayat Amdi, Ward No. 5, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary , Health And Family Welfare Development Department , Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mission Director National Health Mission, Sector 27, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Jayanti W/o Chhannu Lal Sahu R/o Village And Post Jhalmala, Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For petitioner : Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate For State/respondents No.1 & 3 : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, PL For Respondent No.2 : Mr. CJK Rao, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : None appears Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19.08.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to consider the petitioner for the post of 2nd ANM as per the terms of the advertisement and may pleased to set-aside -2- the candidature of the respondent No. 4 to the post of 2nd ANM. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 3 to consider the objection raised by the petitioner. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that an advertisement was issued on 01.10.2019 to fill up various posts, including 55 posts of ANM. He would further submit that the petitioner, respondent No.4 and other eligible candidates submitted their application forms. He would contend that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process and thereafter, a merit list was published, wherein the name of the petitioner was at serial No.12 in the wait list. It is contended that respondent No.4, who has been considered for appointment, was not a permanent resident of District Dhamtari and, therefore, her selection was erroneous. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Kumrani, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No.1 & 3, would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Yadav. He would submit that respondent No.4 was meritorious to the petitioner and she was a resident of District Dhamtari, and a domicile certificate has been placed on record as Annexure R/3. He would contend that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 3 4. Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, would endorse the submissions made by Mr. Kumrani. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Having considered the fact that respondent No.4 was meritorious to the petitioner and she was a resident of District Dhamtari, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha