1 2025:CGHC:50326 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11126 of 2025 Vijay Kumar Thakur S/o Parmeshwar Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Mungeli, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Secretary Department Of Home Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh Police Headquarter Atal Nagar, New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Range District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - President Recruitment Committee For Year 2023 For Constable Gd Through Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Superintendent Of Police (Event In- Charge ) District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Superintendent Of Police Korba District - Korba (C.G.) 7 - Superintendent Of Police Mungeli District - Mungeli (C.G.) 8 - Timing Technologies India Private Limited Through Its Director Having Office At 3rd Floor, West Wing Of Block- 1 My Home Hub Madhapur Hyderabad (India – 500081 9 - Dagesh Prasad Sahu S/o Ramnihora Sahu Roll No. 1000149768 Through Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 10 - Ajay S/o Arjun Roll No. 1000306281 Through Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.10.10 12:06:21 +0530 2 11 - Rahul Bhargav S/o Ram Kumar Bhargav Roll No. 1000264487 Through Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 12 - Vilas S/o Trilochan Roll No. 1000255041 Through Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 13 - Akhileshwar Ghritlahre S/o Kumar Ghritlahre Roll No. 1000169837 Through Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 14 - Hardeep Sahu S/o Rajkumar Sahu Roll No. 1000262396 Through Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 15 - Ashish Lahre S/o Lochan Lahre Roll No. 1000265477 Through Superintendent Of Police Korba District - Korba (C.G.) 16 - Mukesh S/o Mohit Ram Roll No. 1000458294 Through Superintendent Of Police Korba District - Korba (C.G.) 17 - Anil Kumar S/o Kartik Ram Patel Roll No. 1000432222 Through Superintendent Of Police Korba District - Korba (C.G.) 18 - Lukesh Kumar S/o Satrughan Lal Roll No. 1000541972 Through Superintendent Of Police Korba District - Korba (C.G.) 19 - Devendra Das S/o Chandrashekhar Das Roll No. 1000592855 Through Superintendent Of Police Korba District - Korba (C.G.) 20 - Jayant Kumar S/o Awadh Ram Roll No. 1000537133 Through Superintendent Of Police Korba District - Korba (C.G.) 21 - Jagannat Singh Patel S/o Kanahiya Lal Patel Roll No. 1000549246 Through Superintendent Of Police Korba District - Korba (C.G.) 22 - Prince Chandra S/o Jidhan Chandra Roll No. 1000571288 Through Superintendent Of Police Korba District - Korba (C.G.) 23 - Raja Kumar S/o Santosh Kumar Roll No. 1000655624 Through Superintendent Of Police Korba District - Korba (C.G.) 24 - Sekher S/o Resham Lal Roll No. 100079050 Through Superintendent Of Police Mungeli District - Mungeli (C.G.) 25 - Sanjay Sonwani S/o Chhatar Lal Roll No. 100090535 Through Superintendent Of Police Mungeli District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondents 3 (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy.A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 09.10.2025 1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- 10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce entire records pertaining to 'Physical Efficiency Test' conducted for Range - Bilaspur. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to disqualify the private respondent no. 9 to 25 from appearing in written examination, which is to be held on 14/09/2025, for Recruitment, 2023 in light of Advertisement dated 20/10/2023 (Annexure P/1). 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to cancel the Candidature of those candidates who have practiced unfair method for getting higher marks in Physical Efficiency Test as per Clause 10 of Rule, 9 of Rule, 2007 (Annexure P/2). 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to order for Inquiry against officials, who, allowed ineligible candidates to sit in Written Test to be held on 14/09/2025. 4 10.5 That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner is resident of District Mungeli, C.G. which comes under range Bilaspur for the purposes of Recruitment of Constable (GD) year, 2023. The petitioner is unemployed and an aspirant to get recruited with the Chhattisgarh State Police Department to the post of 'Constable (GD)'. The respondent No.2 has issued advertisement for recruitment of various vacant post (Constable) in the State Police Department vide dated 20/10/2023, for different district. The petitioner is having the requisite eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement issued dated 20/10/2023 and 'Chhattisgarh Police Executive Force, Constable (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2007'. The last date of submission of application (as per advertisement dated 04/10/2024), was initially from 20/10/2023 to 30/11/2023 which was extended time to time. The petitioner has applied for post 'Constable (GD), for Center/District - Bilaspur of Division - Bilaspur, and also for other Division, and paid fee of per Center and successfully submitted his application online. The respondent no. 2 has issued admit card to the petitioner for 'Physical Efficiency Test', issuing various date. The petitioner has appeared in different dates at Test Center and participated in 5 Event and obtained marks and got passing marks (within cut off mark). After appearing in the 'physical efficiency test' it came into the knowledge of the petitioner that mass irregularities have been practiced during the 'Physical Efficiency 5 Test' by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in the Test Center, by raising marks in tests and further giving/raising higher marks in 5 sports/event (i.e. High Jump, Long Jump, Short Foot Throw, 100 mt. Race, and 800 mt. Race). The committee is not following transparency in conducting 'Physical Efficiency Test' by providing 'Xerox mark sheet' to candidates. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent authorities acted arbitrarily, in a discriminatory manner against the petitioner. The respondents are not following fair process of 'Written Examination' and allowing candidates (respondent Nos. 9 to 25) who have involved in corrupt practice in qualifying 'physical efficiency test'. He submits that the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have adopted illegal and corrupt practice by granting higher marks to candidates who failed in Efficiency test. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents Nos. 9 to 25 who are unsuccessful candidates if will be given chance to appear in next phase i.e. Written Test, the fair candidates like petitioner will suffer. Hence, the present petition may be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner himself has actively participated in the recruitment process and has not sought any direct relief in his favour. Instead, the petitioner’s grievance is primarily aimed at seeking the cancellation of the candidature of respondent Nos. 9 to 25, who have also taken part in the examination. The petitioner has prayed to exclude the multiple candidates, without concrete proof of any misconduct or eligibility violation, would be both illegal and 6 arbitrary, and would undermine the principles of fairness and equality that govern public recruitment. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner’s case is founded purely on apprehension and speculative fear of losing out in the subsequent stages of the recruitment process if respondent Nos. 9 to 25 are allowed to continue. The courts have consistently held that apprehensions or fears alone cannot be the basis for the issuance of relief in matters of recruitment, especially when the process is otherwise transparent and compliant with the prescribed rules. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner is baseless and is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the petitioner’s prayer is based solely on conjecture and apprehension, without any tangible evidence to substantiate claims of arbitrariness, discrimination, or corrupt practices on the part of the respondents. The petitioner himself has actively participated in the recruitment process and has not demonstrated any infringement of his rights or any illegality in the continuation of respondent Nos. 9 to 25 in the subsequent phases. The relief sought for cancellation of the candidature of multiple candidates is both unwarranted and contrary to established principles of natural justice and fair play. The recruitment process, being conducted in accordance with the prescribed rules and procedures, must not be stalled on the basis of speculative fears. The petitioner failed to 7 establish any manifest error or serious illegality committed by the recruiting agency. Even he has not filed any document to substantiate his claim, which has been raised in the instant petition. The petitioner himself has not sought any relief for him. Hence, in absence of any relief sought by the petitioner for himself, the writ petition at this stage is not maintainable & deserves to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to law, if any further cause of action arises. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep