1 / 4 CGHC010295272026 2026:CGHC:34174 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5937 of 2026 1 - Smt. Neha Yadu W/o Shri Karan Yadav, Aged About 26 Years R/o 222/42, 05, Ward No. 42, Azad Chowk, Kasaridih, V.T.C. Durg, P.O. Durg, District Durg (C.G.). 2 - Kumari Divya Rani, D/o Shri Ashwani, Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Nandi Chowk, Budhanpur, V.T.C. - Budhanpur, P.O. Bhardakala, Sub- District Gunderdehi, District Balod (C.G.) 3 - Kumari Anjali, D/o Shri Kirtan Lal, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Rana Khujji, District Balod (C.G.). 4 - Kumari Rakhi Rajwade, D/o Shri Umesh Chandra Rajwade, Aged About 29 Years R/o Kunjnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.). 5 - Jharna Thakur W/o Sandeep Kumar, Aged About 33 Years R/o Supela Ward No.12, Sanatan Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Public Health and Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Commissioner-Cum-Director, Directorate of Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Swasthya Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - The Joint Director (Establishment), Directorate of Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Swasthya Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.08.07 11:03:41 +0530 2 / 4 4 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam), Through Its Controller, Block-1, Fourth Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondents For Petitioners : Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Addl. AG For Respondent No.4 : Mr .Arpit Parakh, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 05/08/2026 1. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging Add on dated 01.09.2025 i.e. addition to the previous advertisement issued by respondent No.3 whereby a provision was made for grant of 10 bonus marks to temporary health workers who had rendered six months' service during the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioners have also questioned the consequential notices issued thereafter extending the time for submission of experience certificates. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the recruitment process commenced with the advertisement dated 13.08.2025 and the introduction of bonus marks by way of the Add On dated 01.09.2025 amounted to changing the rules of the game after the recruitment process had already commenced. It is further contended that the Recruitment Rules, 2013 do not contemplate grant of such bonus marks and, therefore, the impugned action is arbitrary and liable to be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the decision to grant bonus marks is a conscious policy decision of the State Government 3 / 4 intended to extend weightage to temporary health workers who rendered valuable services during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is argued that the Add On dated 01.09.2025 was issued prior to the last date for submission of online applications, i.e., 03.09.2025. Thus, every candidate had notice of the revised selection criteria before the recruitment process reached the stage of closure of applications. It is further submitted that prescription of bonus marks falls within the policy domain of the State and does not warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no merit in the petition. 5. It is not in dispute that although the advertisement was issued on 13.08.2025, the Add On introducing the benefit of 10 bonus marks was issued on 01.09.2025, i.e., before the last date prescribed for submission of applications, namely, 03.09.2025. Consequently, all intending candidates were made aware of the modified criteria before the recruitment process reached the stage of closure of applications. Therefore, it cannot be said that the selection criteria were altered after completion of the application process so as to prejudice the candidates or vitiate the recruitment. 6. Further, the grant of bonus marks to a particular class of candidates who had rendered services during the COVID-19 pandemic is a matter falling within the policy-making domain of the State. Unless such policy is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory or contrary to any 4 / 4 statutory provision or constitutional mandate, this Court would not sit in appeal over the wisdom of the executive in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No such ground has been established by the petitioners. 7. The mere fact that the policy decision was taken after issuance of the advertisement would not render it illegal when the revised criteria had been notified before expiry of the last date for submission of applications, thereby affording equal notice and opportunity to all eligible candidates. 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned Add On dated 01.09.2025 and the consequential actions do not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu