1 CGHC010211302017 2026:CGHC:34399 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7321 of 2017 1. Manish Rajput Son Of Shri Ram Singh Rajput, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bharni, Post Devri, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2. Ravishankar Dewangan, Son Of Shri Bhagelaram Dewangan, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Titurdih, Shivaji Nagar, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3. Dinesh Singh Rajput, Son Of Shri Bodhsingh Rajput, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Parpodi, Post Mohbhatta, Tahsil Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Police Station Rakhi, New Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director/ Joint , Health Services, Indravati Bhavan, 3rd Floor, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 311 of 2018  Ramanuj Lal Verma Son Of Shri Jeevarakhan Verma, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Dumardihkala, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Government Of C.G. Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Police Station Rakhi, New Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director/ Joint, Health Services, Indravati Bhavan, 3rd Floor, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.08.07 10:47:48 +0530 2 3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Satya Kumar Mandloi, Advocate For State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.08 .2026 1. The petitioners have filed these petitions against the order dated 16.09.2015 passed by the Joint Director, Health Services, whereby representations made by the petitioners and similarly situated persons were rejected. 2. The facts in brief are the petitioners after completion of paramedical certificate course, applied for Multipurpose Health Worker(MPHW) pursuant to advertisement issued in the year 2012. The result was declared and names of petitioners were in the select list, but orders of appointment were not issued, therefore, they filed writ petitions and those writ petitions were dismissed. The petitioners and similarly situated candidates filed writ appeals and vide order dated 30.10.2014 liberty was granted to the petitioners to make representations and respondent authorities were directed to take appropriate decision. The respondent No. 2 vide order dated 16.09.2015 rejected the representations so made by the petitioners. Against said order, these petitions have preferred. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that the petitioners as well as other candidates were selected in selection process for the post of Multipurpose Health Workers, but petitioners have not been offered appointment. He would contend that other similarly situated candidates have been considered by the respondents. It is also argued that the 3 respondent No. 2 rejected the representations made by the petitioners in cryptic manner without assigning reasons. He would pray to quash order dated 16.09.2015. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that subsequently a detailed order has been passed by the respondent No. 1 on 05.01.2023, wherein sufficient reasons have been assigned. He would further contend that the advertisement was issued in the year 2012, and after lapse of 14 years, it would not be proper to reconsider claims of the petitioners. He would submit that both the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. The Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 30.10.2014 passed in WA No. 530 of 2013 held that a policy decision has been taken by the State Government with regard to equivalence of qualification of one year training course of Paramedics for appointment as MPHW and a clarificatory order has also been issued by the department on 31.06.2013. The Hon’ble Division Bench had permitted the candidates to approach the State Government to pursue their claim as to whether retrospective effect could be granted to the paramedics candidates. 7. The order Annexure P/6 would show that the respondent No. 2 without assigning any reason, rejected the claims of the petitioners. It is well settled principle of law that reasons are heart of the orders. The respondent No. 2 has not assigned any reason while rejecting the representations of the petitioners, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the 4 case, order dated 16.09.2015 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 2 to take decision afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), these petitions are hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant