MANOJ KUMAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010437102026 2026:CGHC:46903
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
JYOTI
SHARMA
WPS No. 7984 of 2026
Digitally signed by
JYOTI SHARMA
Date: 2026.11.05
16:14:33 +0530
Manoj Kumar S/o. Ram Prasad Aged About 32 Years R/o. Village
Churela, Bhatgoan District Sarangarh Bilaigarh C.G.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family
Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal
Nagar, District Raipur C.G.
2. Commissioner Cum Director Directorate Of Health Services C.G.,
Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)
3. Chief Medical And Health Officer (Cmho) Balodabazar Bhatapara,
Distt. Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.)
4. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Through Examination
Controller, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Raipur
(C.G.)
5. Krishna Kumar Kamde S/o. Deepak Kumar Kamde Aged About 38
Years Through Chief Medical And Health Officer (Cmho) Balodabazar-
Bhatapara, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) @ Serial No 9 In
Annexure P/1,
6. Sunil Kumar Sahu S/o. Girdhari Lal Sahu Aged About 34 Years
Through Chief Medical And Health Officer (Cmho) Balodabazar-
Bhatapara, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) @ Serial No 14 In
Annexure P/1,
7. Pikeshwar Kumar S/o. Bhagwat Ram Aged About 38 Years Through
Chief Medical And Health Officer (Cmho) Balodabazar-Bhatapara Distt.
Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) @ Serial No 15 In Annexure P/1,
8. Tikeshwar Kumar Sahu S/o. Bhagtu Ram Aged About 36 Years
Through Chief Medical And Health Officer (Cmho) Balodabazar-

2
Bhatapara, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) @ Serial No 17 In
Annexure P/1,
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent/
State
: Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. along with Ms.
Vertika Shrivastava, P.L.
For Respondent
No. 4
: Mr. Arpit Parakh on behalf of Mr. Animesh
Tiwari, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge
Order on Board
05.11.2026
1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
present writ petition has been filed questioning the grant of
additional 10 bonus marks to the private respondents in the direct
recruitment process for the post of Rural Health Coordinator
(Male), pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.06.2025. It is
contended that, in terms of the State Government circular dated
07.12.2021, 10 bonus marks were admissible only to those
health workers who were specifically appointed to discharge
duties during the COVID-19 pandemic and had rendered
continuous service for a period of six months. However, the
respondent authorities have extended the said benefit to
candidates who were appointed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic,
which is contrary to the aforesaid circular and, therefore, illegal.
2. Per contra, learned State counsel, along with learned counsel
appearing for respondent No. 4, submits that the circular dated
07.12.2021 provides for the grant of additional 10 bonus marks to
employees who have rendered continuous service for a period of

3
six months during the COVID-19 pandemic, without making any
distinction between employees appointed prior to or during the
pandemic. It is, therefore, contended that the private respondents
No. 5 to 8, having rendered continuous service for the requisite
period during the COVID-19 pandemic, have rightly been
awarded the said bonus marks. It is further submitted that the
grant of such marks is also in consonance with the order dated
01.05.2026 passed by this Court in WPS No. 635 of 2026,
wherein directions were issued for extending the benefit of
additional 10 bonus marks to contractual employees also who
had worked in Government health institutions/centres during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
4. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and upon perusal of
the circular dated 07.12.2021 issued by the State Government, it
appears that the benefit of additional 10 bonus marks is
admissible to employees who have rendered continuous service
for a period of six months during the COVID-19 pandemic. The
circular does not make any distinction between employees
appointed prior to the commencement of the pandemic and those
appointed during the pandemic, provided they have fulfilled the
prescribed eligibility criteria by rendering continuous service for
the requisite period during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore,

4
the private respondents, having fulfilled the aforesaid eligibility
criteria, cannot be said to have been wrongly extended the
benefit of 10 bonus marks. Further, the action of the respondent
authorities is also in conformity with the directions issued by this
Court vide order dated 01.05.2026 passed in WPS No. 635 of
2026.
5. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in
the grant of additional 10 bonus marks to the private respondents
warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed
at the motion stage itself .
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
JUDGE
Jyoti