Available State Medical Board appellate remedy must be pursued before invoking writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner challenged the communication/decision dated 14 August 2026 issued by the Chhattisgarh State Medical Board, concerning her medical eligibility.

She sought quashing of the decision, consideration of her eligibility certificate and medical assessment issued by the AIIMS, Raipur Medical Assessment Board, or, alternatively, constitution of a fresh medical board including a neurology/neurosurgery specialist.

During the hearing, the petitioner submitted that she had already filed an appeal before the Director of Medical Education and Chairman, State Medical Board, on 21 August 2026.

The State submitted that, under the administrative order dated 28 August 2015, the State Medical Board was empowered to hear grievances against orders passed by it.

The petitioner consequently agreed to file a fresh application/appeal before the State Medical Board against the impugned order, and the State raised no objection.

Whether the petitioner should pursue the remedy of an application/appeal before the State Medical Board against its order dated 14 August 2026, in view of the administrative order dated 28 August 2015.

Whether the writ petition should be disposed of with a direction to the State Medical Board to consider and decide the petitioner’s application/appeal expeditiously.

The Court applied the administrative mechanism created by the order dated 28 August 2015, under which the State Medical Board was authorised to hear grievances against orders passed by it.

The Court consequently directed the petitioner to avail that specified remedial mechanism before invoking further writ relief and required the competent authority to decide the matter expeditiously.

Since the State Medical Board’s administrative framework provided a mechanism for reconsidering grievances against its orders, and the petitioner had agreed to pursue that remedy, the Court considered it appropriate not to adjudicate the medical merits or directly examine the AIIMS assessment at that stage.

With the State’s consent, the Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh application/appeal before the State Medical Board, thereby ensuring that the grievance was considered by the designated authority within a defined and limited timeframe.

The Court directed that, if the petitioner filed an application/appeal before the State Medical Board against the order dated 14 August 2026 within three days from the order, the Board should consider and dispose of it as expeditiously as possible, preferably within seven days thereafter.

No decision was rendered on the substantive validity of the State Medical Board’s order or on the petitioner’s medical eligibility.