1 2025:CGHC:26119-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 277 of 2025 1 - Hemchand Borvanshi S/o Shri Bishhat Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Ghothiya, Police Station Khairagarh, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Birbaldas Mourya S/o Shri Lal Maurya Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Devkatta, Police Station Dongargarh, Tahsil Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ramnarayan Sahu S/o Shri Lokuram Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Boirdih, Police Station Churiya, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Shiksha Vibhag, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary Chhattisgarh Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sanchalak Lokshikshan Sanchanalaya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Pariksha Niyantrak Chhattisgarh Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Durga Prasad Sahu S/o Shri Sant Ram Sahu R/o Village And Post Bhothli, Thana Dongargarh, Tahsil Lal Bahadur Nagar, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 6 - Santosh Padoti S/o Shri Kuma Lal Padoti R/o Village Bhursa Tola- Ye, Post And Thana Bhortalav, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 7 - Shahina Begam D/o Shri Islam Khan Aged About 39 Years R/o Sector 8, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Dahariya, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20 . 06 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Dahariya, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. By way of present writ appeal under Sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellants, who were writ petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 in the writ petition, have challenged the order dated 28.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WP(S) No.63/2020 (Hemchand Borvanshi & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/appellants herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that respondent No.2 conducted examination in the year 2019 for recruitment of Lecturer E & T Cadre for subjects English, 3 Mathematics and Commerce. Written examination was conducted for said recruitment but, as per the writ petitioners, various ineligible candidates were permitted to be participated in the said examination and thereafter, various incompetent candidates were also found place in merit list, even though, they were not having required qualification, whereas, ineligible candidates were called for verification of documents and if they would not have been called for, then, name of the writ petitioners may be found place above them but due to such irregularities, petitioners have been deprived from getting appointment, hence, they have filed a writ before this Court being WP(S) No.63/2020 and the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.02.2025. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that a large number of final year / appearing year candidates have filled the form by giving wrong information about their educational qualification, whereas on the date of filing the application, they did not have the required educational qualification, which is against the advertisement. The learned Single Judge has also failed to appreciate that the respondent authority has not considered and decided the representation regarding objection dated 05.12.2019 filed by the appellants yet, therefore, the inaction from the part of the respondent authority is arbitrary and malafide. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge has further failed to 4 appreciate that the respondent authority has violated the rules and arbitrarily recruited ineligible candidates, due to which the ineligible candidates were found place in merit list and the appellants being eligible were deprived from the selection. It has been contended that since the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate there are non considerations of the documents filed by the petitioner in the writ petition, as such, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order and the materials available on record it transpires that examination was conducted by the ‘Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board’, and thereafter, select list of as many as 14580 was published and the same has been finalized. That final select list has been approved by the State Government vide order dated 15.09.2020 and in the year 2020 itself, selected candidates have been appointed on their respective post and in the instant writ petition filed before the learned Single Judge, though the writ petitioners have alleged that 5 the said recruitment process has been made by committing various irregularities and illegality etc, ineligible persons were permitted to be participated in the examination process and they have also got selected and it was also alleged that question paper, model answer & final answer-sheet also contain various mistakes and contradictions, but no specific fact has been mentioned by the petitioners in writ petition that who are the ineligible candidates, what irregularities have been committed by respondents, which questions-answers were wrong and who are the candidates selected without having required qualification. Thus, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing that the whole petition is based on vague and baseless allegations. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra