Digitally signed by NAFR SHAYNA KADRI HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8808 of 2023

1 - Smt. Usha Kahra D/o Santram Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Durena, Post Office Dipka, Police Station Dipka, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

2 - Hemant Kumar Patel S/o Ranjan Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Tavera, Post Office Tavera, Police Station Ranchirai, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

versus

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

2 - Director Directorate Of Health Services, North Block Sector-19, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - Divisional Joint Director Divisional Health Services Bilaspur, District :

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

09/02/2026

1. The present writ petition is being filed seeking following reliefs:-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioners from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners by declaring them as eligible to be appointed to the post of Ophthalmic Assistant Officer and further be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the name of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Ophthalmic Assistant Officer being eligible, suitable and qualified persons.

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

2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the petitioners, who belong to the OBC category, are aspirants for Government service and possess the requisite educational qualifications as well as relevant work experience for the post of Ophthalmic Assistant Officer. Respondent No.3 issued an advertisement for direct recruitment to various posts, including 49 posts of Ophthalmic Assistant Officer, prescribing eligibility criteria, mode of online application and a merit-based selection process comprising marks of 10+2 examination, technical education, work experience and bonus marks for COVID-19 duty. Being eligible, the petitioners applied online and their applications were scrutinized by the respondents. Thereafter, a provisional list was published and claims and objections were invited, during which the petitioners submitted objections pointing out a bona fide mistake committed while filling the online form, namely non-mentioning of marks of previous years of their training course and mentioning only the final year details, and sought correction of the same. Subsequently, the respondents finalized the merit list and conducted document verification, in which the petitioners participated; however, in the final selection list, the candidature of the petitioners was rejected solely on the ground that they had not mentioned details of previous years of their training course. The petitioners contend that the said mistake was inadvertent, bona fide and not intentional, that they did not suppress any material information, and that rejection of their candidature on such technical ground is arbitrary and illegal, particularly when similarly situated candidates were permitted to correct their mistakes, including in cases where this Court has granted relief by directing consideration of such corrections, as in the cases of Rekha Sahu and Bhoj Kumari Patel, whereas the petitioners, despite being meritorious and within the zone of selection, have been denied similar treatment, resulting in