AFR VISHAKHA BEOHAR DsVBiIEigSg Oni Hte Ha Adl A Kby RHyA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6075 of 2024

1 - Yogeshwar Chandram S/o Rambhajan Chandram Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Chhote Gantuli, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-

Bilaigarh, C.G. --- Petitioner(s)

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 Department Of Health, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.

3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh, C.G.

--- Respondents WPS No. 6160 of 2024

1 - Premraj Vishal S/o Rajkumar Vishal Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Chikhali, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - Director Directorate Department Of Health Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners : Mr. T.K. Jha & Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocates.

For State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. A.G. & Mr.

S.S.Choubey, P.L.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

07.03.2025

1. This bunch of writ petitions involves identical issues, therefore, in order to decide the same, they are being clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order.

2. In both the writ petitions, almost same reliefs have been claimed by the petitioners. For the sake of brevity, the reliefs sought by the petitioners in WPS No.6075/2024 (Yogeshwar Chandram vs. Statse of Chhattisgarh & Others) has been taken into consideration which are quoted hereinbelow:-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set aside the impugned notification dated 04.09.2024 (Annexure-P/6) and direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to participate in selection process.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that Chief Medical & Health Officer Raigarh (Respondent No. 3) issued an advertisement inviting online applications for various post including the post of Pharmacist Grade- II, Dresser Grade- I, & II, RHO (Male) and RHO (Female) and Dark Room Assistant by 10.06.2022. In the said advertisement, in para 12, it is specifically mentioned that how the marks have to be given as per Education qualification and Experience and Experience During the Covid-19 Period. The applications were invited from the qualified persons from 20.06.2022 to 11.07.2022 in online mode. The petitioners had applied for the post of Pharmacist Grade- II on 09.07.2022. On 04.05.2023, the respondent No. 3 issued corrigendum for Amended Advertisement and stated in para (C) that the experience mark, included Covid-19 bonus marks is not more than 15 marks. Thereafter, on 23.07.2024, the respondent No. 3 issued a notification and list of candidates who have applied for the various post. In the list published on 23.07.2024 by the respondent No. 3, the petitioners were given 15 marks for work experience but they were not given 10 marks for Covid-19 bonus marks and in this regard, the petitioners moved an application on 28.07.2024 for giving them the bonus marks. Thereafter, on 04.09.2024 respondent No. 3 issued notification about the claim moved by the petitioners and other candidates. In this list the claim of the petitioners was not considered and his claim was rejected and stated that "पू(cid:2)्ብ(cid:4) ेሰ(cid:7) ही(cid:9) 15 अंक(cid:11) ्ቚदा(cid:15)न किकया(cid:15)