Neelam Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1961 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Neelam Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 April, 2026

                                  1




                                                  2026:CGHC:18328
                                                               NAFR



         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                       WPS No. 4081 of 2022

1 - Satyabhama Sahu W/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 44
Years R/o Gram Amera, Post, Komakhan, Block And Tahsil Bagbahara,
District               Mahasamund                   Chhattisgarh.

2 - Human Sahu W/o Shri Suresh Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Gram
Bagbahara, Post Koma (Khallari), Block And Tahsil Bagbahara, District
Mahasamund                                             Chhattisgarh.

3 - Premseela Patel W/o Duryodhan Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o
Seriyakeda,    Pithora   District  Mahasamund      Chhattisgarh.

4 - Meena Thakur W/o Shri H Kumar Thakur Aged About 34 Years R/o
Bhithidih, Post Bhithidih, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

5 - Jyotsana Sao W/o Shri Biharilal Sao Aged About 35 Years R/o
Village Hadapathra, Post Garhphul, Basna District Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh.

6 - Meena Patel W/o Shri Gajanand Patel Aged About 46 Years R/o
Village Pirda, Post Tumgaon Malidih, District Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh.

7 - Mongra Choudhary W/o Shri Keshav Choudhary Aged About 35
Years R/o Village Kodopali, Post Baradali, District Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh.

8 - Monika Mogre W/o Shri Vishnuram Mogre, Aged About 30 Years R/o
Village Amakoni, Post Khamahriya. District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

9 - Seema Choudhary W/o Shri Yashwant Choudhary Aged About 40
Years Village Tilakpur, Post Partal, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

10 - Bhuneshwari Sahu W/o Shri Jawaharlal Sahu Aged About 40
Years R/o Village Kasjogi, Post Kasiogi And District Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh.
                                    2


11 - Durga Diwan W/o Shri Ramakant Diwan Aged About 39 Years R/o
Village Dadargaon, Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

12 - Seema Kamar W/o Shri Anil Kamar Aged About 34 Years R/o
Bijepur, Post Sankra (Jank) Block Pithora District Mahsamund
Chhattisgarh.

13 - Purnima Bariha W/o Shri Vinay Kumar Aged About 27 Years R/o
Village, Bhaskarapali, Block Pithora District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

14 - Dileshwari Diwan W/o Shri Baldev Diwan Aged About 34 Years R/o
Village Reva, Post Mongrapali, Block Bagbahara, District Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh.
                                                     --- Petitioner(s)
                               versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department
Of Health And Family Walfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Nagar,      Nawa      Raipur,     District   Raipur      Chhattisgarh.

2 - Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, 3rd
Floor,     Nawa       Raipur    District    Raipur      Chhattisgarh.

3 - The Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

4 - Mission Director, National Health Mission, Sector 27, Nawa Raipur,
District                     Raipur                       Chhattisgarh.

5 - Chief Medical And         Health   Officer,   Mahasamund    District
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
                                                  --- Respondent(s)

WITH

1 - Lalit Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Avadh Ram Sahu, Aged About 35 Years R/o B.T.I. Road, Ward No. 27, Jagat Vihar Colony, District :

Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

2 - Jitendra Netam S/o Shri Sukhsagar Netam, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Karmapatpar, Post Samhar, Block Bagbahara, District :

Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

3 - Durgesh Yadav S/o Shri Tirith Ram Yadav, Aged About 26 Years R/o Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)

---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - The Collector, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

4 - Mission Director, National Health Mission, Sector 27, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Mahasamund, District :

Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent(s)

WITH

1 - Neelam Sahu W/o Shri Digeshwar Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Anwaradabari, Post Khallari, Block Bagbahara, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Director Directorate Of Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan,3rd Floor, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - The Collector Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

4 - Mission Director National Health Mission, Sector 27, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent(s)

WITH

1 - Kundan Diwan S/o Shri Lav Kumar Diwan Aged About 24 Years R/o Village And Post Narra Block, Bagbahara, Mahasamund, District :

Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner(s) Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Walfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan 3rd Floor, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - The Collector, Mahasamumd,, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

4 - Mission Director, National Health Mission, Sector 27, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Mahasamund, District :

Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent(s)

WITH

1 - Jyoti Shrivas W/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Shrivas Aged About 27 Years R/o Adarsh Nagar, Panchaseel, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

2 - Sunita Parte W/o Shri Kamlesh Parte, Aged About 30 Years R/o Mohari Bhata, Ward No. 28, Near Bijli Office, Mahasamund, District :

Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

3 - Girja D/o Shri Pushkarlal, Aged About 25 Years R/o 108/06, Villagesinghanpur, Post Jhalap, Thana- Patewa Block And, District :

Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

4 - Jyoti Sahu W/o Shri Shankar Lal Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Sitti Nala, Khaira Chowk, Bagbahara Road, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

5 - Brajesh Pati S/o Shri Vrindavan Pati Aged About 27 Years R/o Near Water Tank, Ward No. 01, Basna, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

6 - Neha Diwan W/o Shri Barataram Diwan Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Gabond, Post Khusrapali, Block Bagbahara, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Walfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - The Collector Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

4 - Mission Director, National Health Mission, Sector 27, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Mahasamund, District :

Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent(s)

For Petitioners : Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate alongwith Ms. Ankita Gouraha, Advocate For State : Mr. Vinay Kumar Pandey, Dy. A.G. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board

22.4.2026

1) By way of these petitions, petitioners have sought following

reliefs:-

10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 04.05.2022 (P/1) issued by the respondent No. 5.

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and direct the Respondent authority to issue an appointment order in favour of the petitioners on the basis of final/merit list published on 01.02.2022.

10.3 That, any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the petitioners.

2) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an advertisement

was issued on 2.7.2021, for recruitment to various posts, in which

the petitioners participated and selection was to be based on

educational qualifications and experience. She further submits

that following a scrutiny of documents, the Selection Committee

prepared a select list in which the petitioners were placed on

merit. However, an inquiry committee--constituted at the instance

of local leaders--and the Selection Committee subsequently

decided to cancel the entire selection process. She contends that

this cancellation was purportedly on the grounds that the National

Health Mission (2018) guidelines were not followed and the select

list was not ratified by the competent authority. She further

contends that these facts were within the knowledge of the

Selection Committee from the inception of the process, yet no

objections were raised at that time, therefore the action of the

respondent authorities in canceling the entire selection process is

illegal, arbitrary, and mala fide. Accordingly, she prays for the

quashing of the impugned order dated 4.5.2022, and seeks a

direction to the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners

for appointment by virtue of their placement on the select list.

3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents would oppose. They submit that period of

engagement for the advertised posts was for period of one year

and said period has already expired. They further submit that

since the guidelines of National Health Mission, 2018 were not

followed, the selection committee exercised its right to cancel the

entire selection process in accordance to the provisions

contained in the advertisement. They content that these petitions

are misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

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

documents placed on record with utmost circumspection.

5) Admittedly, petitioners have filed these petitions seeking quashing

of order dated 4.5.2022. However, as the period of contract as

stated in the advertisement was for period of one year and said

period has already expired, therefore no direction can be issued

to respondent authorities to consider the names of petitioners for

appointment.

6) Taking into consideration the fact that advertisement pertains to

year 2021 and period of engagement/ contract was for period of

one year from the date of advertisement, at this stage, no case is

made for interference. Consequently, these petitions stand

dismissed.

7) However, petitioners would be at liberty to participate in any

recruitment processes, if they are eligible, qualified and suitable

for the posts advertised.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

Ajinkya