ORDER :

1. The matter was listed in the motion hearing stage for vacating the interim order passed by this Court on 18.04.2022. Looking to the fact that the selection process is under challenge, the with the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. The petitioner has cleared General Nursing and Midwifery Examination and got registration with Chhattisgarh Nurses Registration Council, Raipur as such she is qualified candidate for the post of General Nursing and Midwifery. The petitioner has challenged the advertisement dated 24.03.2022 and the amended advertisement dated 25.03.2022 issued by respondents No. 3 mainly contending that said advertisement is contrary to the Rules namely the Chhattisgarh Health and Family Welfare Department Non-ministerial Para-Medical and Nursing (Directorate of Health Services) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2013 (For short 'the Rules, 2013').

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Rule 6 of the Rules, 2013 which provides Mode of Recruitment and Rule 6(1)(A) provides that direct recruitment through competitive examination/selection therefore, it is incumbent upon the respondent No. 3 to conduct competitive examination for recruitment on the of staff nurse. Whereas, the respondent No. 3, Divisional Joint Director has issued advertisement by which they have decided not to conduct written examination but the merit list will be prepared as per the direction given by the State Government on 21.03.2022. According to the direction the merit list will be prepared on the basis of 85% marks of educational qualification and maximum 15% will be granted to the candidates who have worked in the health institution of the State Government. The clause further provides that the candidates who have worked in the Government Institution during Covid Pandemic for 6 months continuously will be given 10 marks bonus. The merit list will be prepared after adding three components as provided in Clause 14 of the Advertisement. He would further submit that there is no provision for conducting competitive examination in the advertisement which is contrary to the Rules, 2013. In other divisions at Ambikapur and Jagdalpur advertisements were issued on 17.03.2022 and 31.12.2021 competitive examination have been conducted, thus, the respondents are adopting different mode of selection in the same department which is nothing but arbitrariness suffers from illegality, as such, issuance of advertisement is bad in law and would pray for quashing of advertisements. The petitioner has also prayed for conducting the competitive examination as it has been conducted in other divisions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is settled position of law that the advertisement should consist of the criteria for appointment which is provided in the recruitment rules, otherwise the advertisement is illegal. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashish Kumar vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh {2018 (3) SCC 55} wherein in paragraph No. 27 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“27. Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription. Thus, looking to the qualification prescribed in the statutory rules, appellant fulfills the qualification and after being selected for the post denying appointment to him is arbitrary and illegal. It is well settled that when there is variance in the advertisement and in the statutory rules, it is statutory rules which take precedence. In this context, reference is made in judgment of this Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors., 2006 (9) SCC 507. Paragraph 21 of the judgment lays down above proposition which is to the following effect:

21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 01.07.2001 and 01.07.2