1 2025:CGHC:22480-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 355 of 2025 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atalnagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General of Police Head Quarter Sector-19, Nawa Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Inspector General of Police Surguja Range-Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent of Police Balrampur, Distt.- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) --- Appellants versus 1 - Narendra Kumar Kashyap S/o Shri Rajkumar Kashyap Aged About 37 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Police Constable (Batch No. 389) Posted At P.S. Rajpur, Distt.- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 2 - Jairani Khalkho W/o Pramod Tigga Aged About 42 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Police Constable (Batch No. 448) At Police Line Balrampur, Distt.- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Lalita Tiwari W/o Nilendra Kumar Aged About 36 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Police Constable (Batch No. 481) Posted At P.S. Shankargarh, Distt.- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Padma Yadav W/o Vinod Kumar Yadav Aged About 41 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Police Constable (Batch No. 484) Posted At Police Station Balrampur, Distt.- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 5 - Shashikala Tirki W/o Atul Arpan Lakra Aged About 40 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Police Constable Posted At Police Station Ramchandrapurr, Distt.- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) --- Respondents For Appellants/State : Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Addl. Adv. General Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , J. 03 .06 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants / State on I.A. No. 02/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 108 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. This writ appeal is presented against the order dated 13.12.2024 (Narendra Kumar Kashyap & others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2803 of 2022, whereby, the writ petition filed by writ petitioners / respondents herein was disposed of by learned Single Judge 4. It has been pointed out by learned State counsel, appearing for the appellants that in an identical matter, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had dismissed WA No. 343 of 2025 (State of 3 Chhattisgarh & Others Vs. Avinash Singh & Others) vide order dated 29.05.2025, observing as follows : “9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition by observing that the SOP dated 06/08/2021 was issued by the respondent No.1 in the name of Hon'ble Governor. Section 51 (2) says that any amendment in Regulation must be notified in the official gazette and thereafter it will come into force. Learned Single Judge further observed that the service rules with regard to the Police Departments were enacted in accordance with the Article 309 of the Constitution of India whereas the State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Home exercising executive power amended the recruitment rules, which is not permissible. He further observed that the State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Home without notifying the amendment in the official gazette, inserted certain amendment in the recruitment rules, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007. Learned Single Judge quashed the SOP issued by the respondent No.1 dated 06/08/2021 and granted liberty to the State of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home to frame new SOP, if so advised strictly in accordance with Section 51(2) of the Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007 and Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Government Advocate for the appellants, perusing the documents appended with writ petition as also in writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while disposing of 4 the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / respondents herein, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). He further submits that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 343 of 2025, this appeal may also be disposed of in the same terms. 5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for State/appellants and having gone through the materials available on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 343 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WA No. 343 of 2025. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 29.05.2025 passed in WA No. 343 of 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Judge Rajshekhar