Ritik Raj Shrivastav vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Per : Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 21-7-2026 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5488/2026, wherein the writ petition filed by the appellant (writ petitioner) has been dismissed.

WPS No. 5488/2026 was filed by the appellant assailing the communication dated 26-5-2026 (Annexure P-1 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No. 7/the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Hospital Superintendent, Government Hospital, Ambikapur in the district of Sarguja, whereby the authority declined to issue character verification certificate to the appellant solely on the ground that, two FIRs have been registered against him. On the basis of said communication, the appellant’s engagement, who was continuing on daily wage basis (Collector rate) in Rajmata Shrimati Devendra Kumari Singh Deo Government Medical College, Ambikapur since September, 2025, came to an end.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, out of the two FIRs registered against the appellant, one was registered under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for brevity, ‘JJ Act’) and trial in respect of the 2^nd FIR is going on. He therefore, submits that, the appellant should not have been denied issuance of character verification certificate. Due to denial of issuance of the character verification certificate, continuance of the appellant as daily wage employee (Collector rate) came to an end and the appellant was not given any further engagement as daily wage worker. It is his submission that, in the proceeding under the JJ Act, the appellant was censured, but the trial in respect of other FIR is still pending, thus, there was no impediment in issuance of character verification certificate in his favour. It is submitted that, learned Single Judge without taking into consideration these material aspects, passed the impugned order, which is perse illegal and is liable to be set aside.

Mr. Bhaduri, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the State, on the other hand, submits that, learned Single Judge has taken note of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in the writ petition. In para 5 of the impugned order, it is observed as under :-

Learned Dy. Adv. General further submits that, the second FIR was registered when the appellant was continuing as daily wage employee. It is also submitted that, as per requirement, at the time of of entering as daily wage worker, the appellant was required to submit an undertaking that, no criminal case has either been decided or pending against him. It is also observed therein that, if the undertaking would be found to be incorrect, then the engagement of the appellant would be discontinued. Thus, the appellant also does not qualify Clause 4 of the undertaking given at the time of his engagement as a daily wage worker. Copy of the undertaking was also enclosed to the writ petition. He, therefore, submits that, the writ appeal merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed.

Taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the observations made by learned Single Judge, this Court finds that, two FIRs have been registered against the appellant. In respect of first FIR, the petitioner has already been convicted. As he was allegedly a juvenile at the time of commission of offence, he was censured only. The second FIR is still under trial. Thus, it has been rightly observed by learned Single Judge that, the appellant should not be engaged in a hospital when he has criminal antecedent. As such, we find no infirmity in the impugned order, which is a reasoned one.

Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.