Pre-COVID Appointment Doesn’t Bar Health Workers From 10 Bonus Marks for Six Months’ Continuous Pandemic Service: Chhattisgarh HC

The petitioner challenged the award of 10 bonus marks to private respondents in the direct recruitment process for Rural Health Coordinator (Male), pursuant to an advertisement dated 16 June 2025. He contended that the State Government circular dated 7 December 2021 reserved the marks for health workers specifically appointed to perform COVID-19 duties and continuously serving for six months; the private respondents had been appointed before the pandemic.

The State and respondent No. 4 argued that the circular required six months’ continuous service during the pandemic but did not distinguish between employees appointed before or during it. They also relied on an order in WPS No. 635 of 2026 extending the benefit to qualifying contractual employees.

The writ petition was dismissed at the motion stage.

The Court applied the State Government circular dated 7 December 2021, which makes 10 additional bonus marks available to employees who rendered six months’ continuous service during the COVID-19 pandemic; the circular does not distinguish between employees appointed before the pandemic and those appointed during it, provided they meet the service requirement.

The Court also relied on its order dated 1 May 2026 in WPS No. 635 of 2026, which directed that the benefit be extended to contractual employees who worked in Government health institutions or centres during the pandemic.

The Court considered whether the authorities’ decision disclosed an illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court found that the circular’s eligibility criterion was six months’ continuous service during the pandemic, not appointment specifically for pandemic duties or appointment during the pandemic.

Because the circular contained no distinction based on when an employee was appointed, the private respondents’ pre-pandemic appointments did not disqualify them if they had completed the required service. The award of marks was also consistent with the directions in WPS No. 635 of 2026; accordingly, the Court found no illegality or infirmity requiring writ intervention.

The writ petition was dismissed at the motion stage as devoid of merit.