1 2026:CGHC:6360 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6448 of 2023 Jitendra Kumar Sahu S/o Paltan Lal Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o House No. A/45, Ekta Nagar, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Health Services Pension Bada, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Durg, Civil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Balod, Civil And Revenue District Balod Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Bemetara, Civil And Revenue District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Korea, Civil And Revenue District Korea-Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Natasha Khan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ramkrishna Kashyap, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Anway Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 04.02.2026 1. Heard Ms. Natasha Khan, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Ramkrishna Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.04 18:38:18 +0530 2 Mr. Anway Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by this Court in WPS No.1953/2023 and analogous cases decided on 19.12.2025. 3. This Court while dismissing WPS No.1953/2023 and analogous cases vide order dated 19.12.2025 observed as follows : “25. From a careful perusal of the record, it clearly transpires that the Recruitment Rules in question came into force in the year 2013, upon their publication in the Gazette on 06.07.2013, and, by their very nature, are prospective in operation. There is nothing on record to indicate that the said Rules were ever intended to operate retrospectively. Admittedly, the courses undertaken by the petitioners were not recognized in the year 2012, when the Rules of 2013 had not yet come into force. 26. It is also undisputed that the advertisement dated 04.05.2012 was issued much prior to the promulgation of the Rules of 2013, and the eligibility criteria prescribed therein for appointment to the post of MPHW (M) were entirely different from those subsequently introduced by the Rules of 2013. At the time of issuance of the said advertisement, the qualifications and eligibility conditions introduced by the Rules of 2013 were neither in existence nor operative, and therefore, the same cannot be imported or applied retrospectively so as to confer any benefit upon the petitioners. 27. This Court had earlier examined the very same issue in detail in WPS No.2107/2012 and other connected matters, wherein the claims of similarly situated petitioners were categorically rejected. The matter was thereafter carried in writ appeals, wherein also the petitioners could not secure any substantive relief. The writ appeals were ultimately disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to submit fresh representations before the competent authorities. 3 28. Pursuant thereto, the representations so submitted were duly considered and rejected by the respondent authorities, specifically holding that the benefit of the subsequent Recruitment Rules which came into force on 06.07.2013 cannot be extended with retrospective effect to appointments governed by the advertisement issued in the year 2012. 29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and another v. B.D. Singhal and others, (2021) 17 SCC 435, while dealing with the similar issue, has observed as follows :- “28. In State of Jharkhand v. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd., Ranchi, (2023) 10 SCC 634, this court speaking through of one us (D Y Chandrachud J) elaborated on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which is grounded in fairness and reasonableness. Explaining that there is a legitimate expectation that the actions of the State are fair and reasonable, it was observed: “45. …The state must discard the colonial notion that it is a sovereign handing out doles at its will. Its policies give rise to legitimate expectations that the state will act according to what it puts forth in the public realm. In all its actions, the State is bound to act fairly, in a transparent manner. This is an elementary requirement of the guarantee against arbitrary state action which Article 14 of the Constitution adopts.” (emphasis supplied) 29. Since the enhancement of the age of superannuation is a ‘public function’ channelised by the provisions of the statute and the service regulations, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used to challenge the action of NOIDA. Though NOIDA sought the approval of the State government for the enhancement with ‘immediate effect’, it never intended or portrayed to have intended to give retrospective effect to the prospectively applicable Government order. The representation of NOIDA could not have given rise to a legitimate expectation since it was a mere recommendation which was subject to the approval of the State Government. Hence, the doctrine of legitimate expectation also finds no application to the facts of the present case” 4 30. Reverting to the facts of the present cases in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (supra), it is quite vivid that the petitioners cannot claim any enforceable or vested right to seek appointment to the post of MPHW (M) by invoking the Recruitment Rules of 2013 with retrospective effect. 31. The advertisement pursuant to which the petitioners had applied was issued in the year 2012, at a point of time when the Rules of 2013 were not in existence, and the eligibility conditions prevailing on the date of advertisement alone governed the selection process. The subsequent framing of the Rules of 2013, which are expressly prospective in operation, cannot be relied upon to reopen or alter the eligibility criteria applicable to an earlier recruitment. 32. The plea of legitimate expectation or equitable consideration advanced by the petitioners is equally untenable. As authoritatively clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to compel the State to act contrary to statutory provisions, nor can it be pressed into service to confer retrospective operation upon rules which are, by their very nature, prospective. In the present case, there was no representation, assurance, or promise by the State that the Rules of 2013 would be applied retrospectively or that the qualifications possessed by the petitioners would be treated as equivalent for appointments governed by the advertisement issued in the year 2012. 33. This Court also finds no merit in the allegation of hostile discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are identically situated with other candidates whose representations have been rejected on the same grounds, and the respondent authorities have applied the statutory rules uniformly and consistently. Such uniform application of law negates any charge of arbitrariness or unequal treatment. 34. In view of the settled legal position, the statutory framework governing the field, and the earlier adjudication by this Court as well as the Division Bench, this Court is of the considered opinion that 5 the impugned rejection of the representations of the petitioners suffers from no illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any legal right accruing in their favour so as to justify the grant of the reliefs claimed. 35. Consequently, and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, all the writ petitions, i.e. WPS Nos.1953/2023, 5421/2023, 6059/2023, 6126/2023, 6223/2023, 6237/2023, 6303/2023, 6450/2023 and 7421/2023 filed by the petitioners, are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WPS No.1953/2023 and analogous cases, instant writ petition may also be disposed off in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to WPS No.1953/2023 and analogous cases, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WPS No.1953/2023 and analogous cases. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed in terms of the order dated 19.12.2025 passed in WPS No.1953/2023 and analogous cases. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh