DHIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
- Court
- Chhattisgarh High Court
- Case type
- WRIT PETITON SERVICE MATTER
- Decided on
- 16-03-2026
1
2026:CGHC:12560
2026:CGHC:12560
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 7353 of 2023
1 - Dhirendra Kumar Singh S/o Shri Rohit Kumar Aged About 33 Years
R/o Village Katharimal, Post Tarda, Police Station Urga, Tahsil Barpali,
District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health
And Family Welfare And Medical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Director Directorate Health And Family Welfare, North Block,
Sector-19, Swasthya Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner :- Mr. Shayon Kar, Advocate
For State :- Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, P.L.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
16.03.2026
2
2026:CGHC:12560
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the
legality and validity of the list of marks published by Respondent
No. 3 for the posts of Radiographer and Medical Lab Technologist,
whereby the petitioner has been awarded ‘0’ marks under the
column of Covid Experience. As per para 15 (C) of the amended
advertisement dated 08.05.2023, candidates who discharged their
duties in Government Health Institutions of the State of
Chhattisgarh during the Corona Global Pandemic for a period of
six months as temporary/ad hoc health workers are entitled to 10
bonus marks in terms of the order dated 07.12.2021 (Annexure
P-3). The petitioner had duly performed his duties for more than
six months during the Covid-19 pandemic, which has also been
certified by the Chief Medical Officer, Korba (Annexure P-4).
Despite submission of the requisite certificate and fulfillment of the
eligibility criteria, Respondent No. 3 has awarded ‘0’ marks to the
petitioner in the published list of marks. The petitioner had also
raised his objection through email and subsequently submitted a
representation dated 06.09.2023 before Respondent No. 3,
however the same has not been considered till date. Thus, the
impugned action of Respondent No. 3 is arbitrary, illegal and
contrary to para 15 (C) of the amended advertisement dated
08.05.2023 and the order dated 07.12.2021, thereby depriving the
petitioner of the benefit of 10 bonus marks and adversely affecting
his chances in the recruitment process. Hence, this petition.
2. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking following reliefs:-
3
2026:CGHC:12560
“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to
the case of petitioner.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to quash/set- aside the impugned list of
marks issued by the Respondent NO. 3.
(Annexure P-5)
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct the respondent authorities
particularly the respondent no. 3 to consider 10
bonus marks as referred in the para 15 (3) of the
Advertisement (Annexure P-2).
10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct the respondent No 3 to allow
the candidature of the petitioner in the present
recruitment proceedings.
10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to any other order that may be deemed
fit and 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 the petitioner is a qualified and
registered Paramedical X-Ray Technician and Pathology
Technician and has been discharging his duties under the office of
Respondent No. 4 since 09.10.2017 on contractual basis. The
respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement dated 08.06.2022,
which was subsequently amended and republished on
08.05.2023, for recruitment to various posts of para medical and
4
2026:CGHC:12560
nursing staff in the Health Department of the State of
Chhattisgarh, including the posts of Radiographer and Medical
Lab Technologist, for which the petitioner duly applied by
submitting all requisite documents. As per para 15 (C) of the
amended advertisement and in terms of the order dated
07.12.2021, candidates who had discharged their duties in
Government Health Institutions of Chhattisgarh during the Corona
Global Pandemic for a period of six months as temporary/ad hoc
health workers were entitled to 10 bonus marks. The petitioner
had been serving since 2017 and had also discharged his duties
during the Covid-19 pandemic period, which is duly certified by
the competent authority. However, while publishing the list of
marks dated 23.04.2023 for the posts of Radiographer and
Medical Lab Technologist, the respondent No. 3 awarded ‘0’
marks to the petitioner under the column of Covid Experience,
despite the petitioner being eligible and having submitted the
requisite certificates. The petitioner raised an objection and
subsequently submitted a representation dated 06.09.2023
seeking grant of the said 10 bonus marks, but no action was taken
by the respondents. Earlier, the petitioner had filed W.P.(S) No.
6022/2023 before this Hon’ble Court, which was withdrawn on
07.09.2023 with liberty to file a fresh duly constituted petition.
Hence, the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while considering
the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lab
5
2026:CGHC:12560
Technician, the radiography services rendered by him during the
COVID-19 period were not taken into consideration and he was
not awarded 10 bonus marks, though such benefit is specifically
provided under paragraph 15(C) of the advertisement. It is further
submitted that on account of non-award of the said 10 bonus
marks, the petitioner could not be appointed to the said post,
whereas had the said marks been awarded, he would have
secured appointment. Hence, rejection of the candidature of the
petitioner is not in accordance with law.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that since the
petitioner had rendered services on a temporary basis, the same
were not taken into consideration and, therefore, he was not
awarded 10 bonus marks for services rendered during the
COVID-19 period.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. From a bare perusal of the record, it is apparent that grant of 10
bonus marks is admissible even in respect of temporary services
rendered during the COVID-19 period, provided the candidate
fulfills the prescribed condition of having discharged duties for a
minimum period of six months in a Government Health Institution.
The documents annexed with the petition, particularly the
certificate issued by the competent authority, clearly establish that
the petitioner had rendered services during the COVID-19 period
6
2026:CGHC:12560
for the requisite duration of six months. Once such service has
been duly certified by the competent authority, the respondents
were required to consider the same in terms of paragraph 15(C) of
the amended advertisement dated 08.05.2023 as well as the
policy decision contained in the order dated 07.12.2021. It is
evident that paragraph 15(C) of the advertisement does not make
any distinction between permanent, contractual, temporary, or ad
hoc employees so long as the candidate had discharged duties
during the COVID-19 pandemic in a Government Health Institution
for the prescribed period. Therefore, denial of the said benefit
solely on the ground that the petitioner rendered services on
temporary basis is contrary to the very object of granting bonus
marks, which is to recognize and incentivize services rendered by
health workers during the extraordinary circumstances prevailing
in the pandemic period. The stand taken by the respondent-State,
therefore, does not appear to be justified, as the eligibility
condition prescribed in the advertisement stands satisfied by the
petitioner. Once the petitioner fulfills the prescribed criteria, denial
of bonus marks amounts to arbitrary exclusion and has a direct
bearing on his merit position in the recruitment process.
8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the petitioner’s claim for grant of 10 additional bonus
marks for services rendered during the COVID-19 period
deserves to be accepted. The petitioner, having established that
he rendered the requisite period of service and having produced
7
2026:CGHC:12560
the necessary certificate in support thereof, is entitled to the
benefit contemplated under paragraph 15(C) of the advertisement.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reconsider the
candidature of the petitioner by awarding 10 additional bonus
marks for the services rendered by him during the COVID-19
period and thereafter rework his merit position in the select list. In
the event the petitioner falls within the zone of selection upon
such recalculation, consequential benefits shall also be extended
to him strictly in accordance with law. However, such exercise
shall be confined to the entitlement of the petitioner under the
recruitment process in question and shall not automatically disturb
appointments already made, unless found necessary in
accordance with law.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed . The aforesaid
exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of
90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha