1 CGHC010283982020 2026:CGHC:39206 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5337 of 2020 1 - Anju Jaiswal W/o Shri Ravi Jaiswal, Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 06, Near Icici Bank Katghora Road, Dipika, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Health Services Chhattisgarh Indirawati Bhawan, Third Floor, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Divisional Officer Health Services Seepat Road Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri R.C.S. Deo, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07/09/2026 1. The petitioner has claimed appointment to the post of Staff Nurse pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.8.2020. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, though the petitioner had worked in different medical institutions, she was not NIRMALA RAO 2 extended the benefit of her experience in accordance with the conditions enumerated in the advertisement and the rules. He would submit that the petitioner secured a total of 68.04 marks, including 12 out of 15 marks for experience, whereas she ought to have been awarded 15 out of 15 marks, as she had worked for seven years in different medical colleges on the post of Staff Nurse. He would submit that, vide order dated 15.12.2020, the respondents were directed to keep one post of Staff Nurse vacant until the next date of hearing. He would pray that the petition be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner is a candidate belonging to the Open Category and secured a total of 68.04 marks, whereas the last selected candidate in the said category secured 71.19 marks. He would submit that even if three additional marks are awarded to the petitioner, her marks would still be below those obtained by the last selected candidate. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. Having considered the fact that the petitioner secured 68.04 marks, whereas the last selected candidate in the Open Category secured 71.19 marks, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi