1 2026:CGHC:16323 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4704 of 2022 1 - Achyutanand Gupta S/o Shri Nirmal Chandra Gupta Aged About 28 Years R/o Village And Post- Badehaldi, Tahsil- Pussore, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of General And Administrative, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Dimple Patel Posted Pharmacist (N.U.H.M), Chief Medical Health Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/s : Ms. Zainab Vanak, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri T.L. Bareth, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09 .04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and call the entire record from the respondent authorities, regarding the petitioner, in the interest of justice. NIRMALA RAO 2 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and direct the respondent no. 2 to alter the final selection list by awarding 01 (one) marks in skill/written examination/interview for question no. 3, in the interest of justice. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and direct the respondent no. 2 to appoint the petitioner in post of Pharmacist (NUHM), in the interest of justice. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass an appropriate order or issue writ as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an advertisement was published by respondent No.2 (Chief Medical & Health Officer) on 23.7.2021 for various contractual posts, including that of Pharmacist. The petitioner participated in the written examination and thereafter, a select list was published. The petitioner secured 69.31 marks whereas, respondent No.3 secured 70.19 marks. She would submit that the options provided for question No.3 were incorrect and that the petitioner should have been granted marks for the said question. She would further submit that had the examiner rectified this error or extended the benefit of the incorrect question to the petitioner, his score would have increased to 70.31, surpassing respondent No.3. Consequently, she would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He would submit that the appointment was purely on a contractual basis for a one-year term (2021-22), which has already expired. He would further submit that any benefit resulting from an incorrect question or answer key 3 would not accrue to the petitioner alone. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5. Even for the sake of argument, if a question or its options were incorrect, the petitioner alone would not be the sole beneficiary of a marks adjustment. This principle was established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ran Vijay Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357. 6. In the present case, the appointment was intended to be on a contractual basis for a period of one year and the said period has already lapsed. 7. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and the above- discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere into the matter. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi