SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 16057

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SUDARU POYAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPS/5883/2022



##PAGE1##

1

Digitally signed

by RAME SH 2026:CGHC:22261

KUMAR VATTI

Date: 2026.05.13

18:59:53 +0530

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 5883 of 2022

* - Sudaru Poyam S/o Kuma Poyam Aged About 24 Years R/o Bade Kilepar

No. 3, Block Bastanar, Tahsil Bastanar, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur),

Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And

Family Welfare Mantralya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur,

District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Director Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar

Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - Divisional Joint Director Office Of The Divisional Joint Director, Health

Services, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur),

Chhattisgarh

4 - Junior Staff Selection Board, Bastar Through It's Chairman, Junior Staff

Selection Board, Bastar Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate

For Respondents/State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha,

Panel Lawyer

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

12/05/2026

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for

records of the case from the respondent no. 3 and 4.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct

the respondent no. 3 to consider the selection & appointment

##PAGE2##

2

of the petitioner on the post of Lab-Technician by providing

benefit of reservation on divyang category.

10.3 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. Mr. Vikas Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that an Advertisement was floated by respondent No. 3 on

31.12.2021 to fill up various posts including 49 posts of Lab

Technicians. He would contend that the petitioner is a physically

challenged person OA (One Arm) with 40% disability and 03 posts out

of 49 posts were reserved for physically handicapped candidates,

particularly candidates having disability with both legs and hearing

handicapped (BL & HH). He would submit that the petitioner

participated in the recruitment process and thereafter final select list

was published, but name of the petitioner was not considered by the

respondent authorities. He would contend that though three posts of

Lab Technicians were earmarked for candidates for BL & HH disability,

but according to the provisions of Section 34 (2) of Rights of Persons

with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short ‘Act 2016’), the authorities should

have interchanged the category as the candidates with BL & HH were

not available. He would further submit that the posts are still lying

vacant with the department and therefore, a representation was made

by the petitioner to consider his claim in accordance with the provisions

of Section 34 (2) of the Act 2016, but till date no decision has been

taken.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, learned Panel Lawyer

appearing for the State/respondents would oppose. He would submit

that 03 posts of Lab Technicians are reserved for persons with

##PAGE3##

3

disability, particularly BL & HH, whereas the petitioner is suffering from

OA (One Arm) disability, therefore, his name was not considered by the

respondent authorities. He would contend that the petition is

misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents.

5. Admittedly, 03 posts of Lab Technicians were earmarked for BL & HH

category, whereas the petitioner belongs to OA category, therefore, his

name was not considered for selection.

6. Be that as it may, as the representation of petitioner is pending

consideration before respondent No. 3, therefore, this petition, at this

juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to

make a representation before respondents No. 1 and 3 and those

respondents are directed to consider the representa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top