1 2025:CGHC:40333 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3198 of 2021 * - Pradeep Kumar Sahu S/o Puranik Ram Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Borenda Post Kesra, Tehsil Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarters, Naya Raipur Near Mantralaya, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Assistant Inspector General Of Police (Selection) Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Senior Superintendent Of Police District Balod Through Its Chairman, Constable Cadre Recruitment Process, Durg Range, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for all the records of this case. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ(s)/order(s) quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 01.03.2021 (ANNEXURE P/3) and letter dated 10.03.2021 (ANNEXURE P/5) issued by the respondents and further the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Constable Driver with all the consequential benefits, for District Rajnandgaon. 10.3 Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances may also be provided to the petitioners. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.14 19:56:59 +0530 2 2. Ms. Anuja Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner applied for post of Driver under the respondents and the last date for submission of application form was 04.02.2018, but on that date, the petitioner was not having driving license at all. She would submit that the petitioner obtained valid driving license on 27.12.2018 and therefore, the name of the petitioner was not considered by respondent authorities. She would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation before the respondent authorities and in turn, the said authority may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Shailja Shukla, learned Deputy Government Advocate would oppose. She would submit that on the cut of date, the petitioner was not having requisite qualification, therefore, he has no right to claim appointment or preference etc. She would contend that the selection process has already been concluded in the year 2020-21 itself, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Considering the submission made by Ms. Anuja Sharma, without making any comments on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation and in turn, the competent authority is directed to decide it expeditiously in accordance with law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti