1 2026:CGHC:17237 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2234 of 2023 1 - Aradhana Das W/o Harun Kumar Das Aged About 46 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Science, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Deepika Yadav W/o Sunil Kumar Yadav Aged About 36 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Science, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Pallavi Koumarya D/o Kamal Kishor Koumarya Aged About 36 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Science, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sandeep Kaur W/o Yogesh Patel Aged About 36 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Science, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Urmila Bhagat W/o Raju Roshan Kujur Aged About 39 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Science, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Shobhana Chandrakar W/o Poonam Kumar Chandrakar Aged About 39 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Science, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Rajeshwari Chandrakar W/o Umashankar Chandrakar Aged About 39 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Science, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 8 - Kiran Jacob W/o Adharsh Jacob Aged About 44 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Science, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 9 - Gracy Mamta Lal W/o Arun Charan Aged About 46 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Science, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 10 - V. Nirmala Rao W/o Ravi Babu Aged About 40 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Science, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 11 - Vibha Shrivas W/o Chitrakant Shrivas Aged About 43 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Science, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 12 - Durgeshwari Sahu W/o Narottam Sahu Aged About 36 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Pt. J.N. Medical College Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 13 - Bhuneshwari Sahu W/o Ishwar Sahu Aged About 36 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Pt. J.N. Medical College Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 14 - Gomati Dewangan W/o Lalit Dewangan Aged About 36 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Pt. J.N. Medical College Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 15 - Mukeshwari Gour D/o Nawal Singh Gour Aged About 36 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Bharat Ratna Lat. Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee Smriti Chikitsa Mahavidayala Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 16 - Kamini Basu W/o Gaukaran Basu Aged About 36 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Bharat Ratna Lat. Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee Smriti Chikitsa Mahavidayala Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 17 - Anuranjana Toppo W/o Omprakash Sinha Aged About 36 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Bharat Ratna Lat. Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee Smriti Chikitsa Mahavidayala Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 18 - Kiran Dewangan D/o Lakhan Lal Aged About 40 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Bharat Ratna Lat. Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee Smriti Chikitsa Mahavidayala Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 19 - Hemlata Chouhan W/o Rajkumar Chouhan Aged About 40 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Bharat Ratna Lat. Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee Smriti Chikitsa Mahavidayala Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 20 - Rajani Guru W/o Naresh Guru Aged About 36 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Shri Bali Ram Kashyap Smriti Chikitsa Mahavidyalaya Dimrapal Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. 21 - Deepika Kujur W/o Vinod Ekka Aged About 37 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Rajmata Shrimati Devendra Kumari Singh Dev Government Medical College Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. 22 - Geeta Giri W/o Devdeep Giri Aged About 36 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Rajmata Shrimati Devendra Kumari Singh Dev Government Medical College Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. 23 - Sangeeta Bada W/o Sanjeet Bada Aged About 37 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Rajmata Shrimati Devendra Kumari Singh Dev Government Medical College Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare And Medical Education, Mahandi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Department Of Medical Education, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Director Department Of Health Services, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Dean Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Science, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 5 - The Civil Surgeon District Hospital Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Gitanjali Gupta W/o Satyendra Kumar Gupta Aged About 43 Years Working As Staff Nurse District Hospital Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioners : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 6 : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 15/04/2026 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. 10.2 To kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the letter/order dated 09/02/2023 (Annexure P/11) issued by respondent no.1. 10.3 To kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 to consider the objection/representation of the petitioners within a time frame work in the interest of justice. 10.4 To kindly be pleased to restrain the respondent no. 1 & 2 from taking any biased decision with respect to seniority of the petitioners and respondent no. 6 5 without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and following the rules governing in the field. 10.5 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. The facts of the case, as borne out from the pleadings and documents placed on record, are that the case arises in the context of two distinct administrative wings under the State, namely the Directorate of Health Services (DHS) and the Directorate of Medical Education (DME), both functioning under separate establishments with independent cadres, service rules, and gradation lists for paramedical and nursing staff. The petitioners are all regular and permanent Staff Nurses appointed under the Department of Medical Education and are governed by the relevant service rules applicable to DME. Respondent No. 6 was initially appointed as a Staff Nurse in the Department of Medical Education in the year 2008 and was posted at Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences, Bilaspur. Subsequently, on her own request and due to personal reasons, she sought transfer to Durg. As no medical education institution existed at Durg at the relevant time, she opted for transfer to the District Hospital, Durg, which falls under the Directorate of Health Services. Accordingly, in the year 2010, she was transferred to DHS on her own request and was thereafter governed by the 6 service rules applicable to DHS. Her name was entered in the seniority list of DHS in accordance with the applicable rules governing transferees, and she has continued to be reflected in the said seniority list for more than a decade without any objection. It is the case of the petitioners that upon such transfer, Respondent No. 6 ceased to have any claim to seniority in the Department of Medical Education, and her seniority stood confined to the cadre of the Health Services Department. Meanwhile, the petitioners continued in DME and their seniority has been consistently determined and finalized over the years. After a lapse of more than 12 years, Respondent No. 6, while still serving under DHS, sought to claim seniority in the Department of Medical Education, primarily with a view to obtain promotional benefits. She submitted representations and also initiated legal proceedings, which resulted in a direction to the authorities to consider her representation. Pursuant thereto, departmental committees examined the matter and opined that her seniority in DME had lapsed due to her voluntary transfer and long acquiescence, and that her claim was barred by delay. However, under alleged pressure of contempt proceedings, Respondent No. 1 issued directions to consider her reinstatement in the seniority list of DME, which, according to the petitioners, is contrary to statutory rules and would adversely affect the settled seniority and promotional prospects of existing employees. Aggrieved by such 7 proposed action, the petitioners submitted objections and representations highlighting that any alteration in seniority at this stage would disturb the long-settled position and violate their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, as their objections were not duly considered and the authorities proceeded further in the matter, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned decision of Respondent No. 1, as reflected in letter dated 09.02.2023, directing consideration of Respondent No. 6 for placement in the seniority list of the Department of Medical Education, is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles governing service jurisprudence. It is contended that the Directorate of Health Services (DHS) and the Directorate of Medical Education (DME) are two distinct administrative entities, having separate cadres, different service rules, and independent gradation lists. Therefore, intermingling of seniority between these two departments is impermissible in law. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 6 had, on her own request, sought transfer from DME to DHS in the year 2010 and was accordingly appointed by transfer as a Staff Nurse under DHS. Consequent upon such transfer, her seniority was rightly determined and fixed in the cadre of DHS in accordance with Rule 12(2)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 8 1961. Her name has continuously been reflected in the finalized seniority list of DHS for more than a decade, including the latest list published in the year 2021. Simultaneously, her name ceased to exist in the seniority list of DME since her transfer, and she never challenged the same at any point of time, thereby allowing the seniority in both departments to attain finality. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners, on the other hand, have been consistently placed in the seniority list of DME, which has been finalized year after year since 2010. Their seniority position has thus attained finality and cannot now be unsettled at the instance of Respondent No. 6, who remained silent for over 12–13 years. It is argued that once Respondent No. 6 voluntarily opted for transfer to another department, she consciously relinquished her seniority in DME and accepted her placement in DHS. Having enjoyed the benefits of such transfer, she cannot now be permitted to claim seniority in the erstwhile department, particularly while continuing in service under DHS. It is emphasized that a Government servant cannot claim seniority simultaneously in two different cadres. It is further contended that even the competent authority (Respondent No. 2), upon due consideration, had categorically held that the seniority of Respondent No. 6 in DME stood lapsed due to her transfer and that her claim was highly belated and barred by delay. The said authority had also proposed absorption of her services in DHS. 9 However, Respondent No. 1, ignoring the said findings and statutory provisions, has proceeded to entertain her claim, which is contrary to Rule 12(2)(a) and unsustainable in law. Learned counsel also places reliance on settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, contending that disputes relating to seniority cannot be reopened after an inordinate delay, particularly when such delay exceeds a decade and when, in the meantime, promotions and other service benefits have already been granted on the basis of finalized seniority. In the present case, the unexplained delay of 13–14 years on the part of Respondent No. 6 renders her claim wholly untenable. It is further argued that even if Respondent No. 6 is to be considered for transfer back to DME, her seniority can only be fixed at the bottom of the cadre in terms of Rule 12(2)(a), and not from her original date of appointment. Any attempt to restore her earlier seniority would seriously prejudice the rights of the petitioners and disturb the long-settled seniority position. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned action of the respondents in proceeding to alter the seniority position without considering the objections and representations of the petitioners is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. Such action infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, and 19(1) of the Constitution of India. Hence, the impugned decision deserves to be quashed. 10 4. Learned State counsel submits that the present petition is misconceived and premature, as the petitioners are essentially challenging a letter dated 09.02.2023, which is merely an internal departmental communication and not a final or enforceable order passed by the competent authority. It is contended that such internal correspondence does not confer or take away any legal rights and, therefore, cannot be subjected to judicial review at this stage. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahadev & Ors. v. Sovan Devi (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 730), wherein it has been held that internal communications within State authorities are not amenable to challenge. It is further submitted that the subsequent order dated 21.04.2023 only pertains to the posting of Respondent No. 6 and does not deal with fixation of seniority. Moreover, even in the interim gradation list dated 01.04.2024, the name of Respondent No. 6 does not find place, and the petitioners have failed to demonstrate as to how they have been prejudiced. Thus, in absence of any final adverse order affecting the rights of the petitioners, the present petition deserves to be dismissed as premature. 5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 6 submits, at the outset, that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is contended that Respondent No. 6 was initially appointed as a Staff Nurse vide order dated 10.04.2008 11 under the Department of Medical Education, and thus she is an original employee of the said department. Her appointment was duly reflected in the relevant records, and she continued to hold her substantive status under the Medical Education Department. It is further submitted that though Respondent No. 6 was transferred from CIMS, Bilaspur to District Hospital, Durg on her own request, her name was initially included in the gradation list of the Directorate of Health Services. However, upon objections raised by other employees, her name was subsequently deleted from the said gradation list, and as of now, her name does not find place in the seniority list of DHS. Thus, Respondent No. 6 is presently in a peculiar situation where her name is not reflected in the seniority list of either department. Learned counsel submits that in these circumstances, Respondent No. 6 approached this Court by filing a writ petition, wherein liberty was granted to her to submit a representation. Pursuant to the directions of the Court, the competent authority considered her representation along with those of other similarly situated staff nurses and passed appropriate orders transferring their services from DHS to DME. Consequently, Respondent No. 6 is now working under the control of the Medical Education Department. It is further argued that the State Government, after due consideration, has taken a conscious decision to transfer the services of Respondent No. 6 and other similarly situated employees (approximately 55 in number) back to 12 the Department of Medical Education. However, the petitioners have failed to challenge the said orders dated 21.04.2022 and 11.06.2023, despite having knowledge thereof. On this ground alone, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also contended that the petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties, as other similarly situated employees affected by the outcome have not been impleaded. Learned counsel further submits that the revised gradation list issued by the Directorate of Health Services has already excluded the name of Respondent No. 6, and her services have not been absorbed in DHS. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners that Respondent No. 6 continues to hold seniority in DHS is factually incorrect. All the grounds raised by the petitioners are denied, and it is contended that no legal or enforceable right of the petitioners has been infringed. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the present writ petition, being misconceived and lacking in merit, deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 7. It appears that the core grievance of the petitioners relates to the proposed disturbance of their settled seniority position in the Department of Medical Education on account of the claim raised by Respondent No. 6. It is also evident that the petitioners have already submitted detailed objections/representations before the 13 competent authorities highlighting their grievances; however, the same have not yet been finally considered or decided. 8. At this stage, without entering into the merits of the rival claims of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the competent authority is directed to consider and decide the pending representations of the petitioners in accordance with law. Such consideration would also clarify the position regarding the seniority of the petitioners vis-à-vis Respondent No. 6 (Smt. Gitanjali Gupta), thereby addressing the apprehensions raised in the present petition. 9. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to decide the representation of the petitioners by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a reasonable time, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all issues are left open to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge