1 2025:CGHC:51043 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5171 of 2025 1 - Sharad Kumar Soni S/o Prahlad Soni Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 16, Purana Rawan Bhata, District Mahasamund C.G. 2 - Bharat Bhushan Sahu S/o Salik Ram Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village And Post- Birkoni, Tehsil And District Mahasamund C.G. 3 - Manish Rajendra S/o Kailash Gajendra Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Piothora, Tehsil - Pithora, District Mahasamund C.G. 4 - Nilesh Agrawal S/o Hajarilal Agarwal Ward No. 12, Behind Sanjay Bartan Bhandar Bassna, Tehsil Basna, District Mahasamund C.G. 5 - Kishor Kumar Chandrakar S/o Kali Ram Chandrakar Ward No. 4, Ayodhyanagar, Mahasamund, Tehsil And District Mahasamund C.G. 6 - Durgesh Kumar Pradhan S/o Purandar Pradhan Aged About 44 Years Ward No. 4, Sarsiwa Road Saraipali, Tehsil And District Mahasamund C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Information Technology, Electronics And Communication, Mantralaya Raipur C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department, Headquarter, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Raipur C.G. 3 - Collector- Mahasamund, District Mahasamund C.G. 4 - Upper Collector/chairman Of Aadhar Operator Selection Committee, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund C.G. 5 - Office Of District E-Governance Society, Mahasamund C.G. 6 - Unique Identification Authority Of India (U I D A I), Represented By Its Chief Executive Officer C E O Office At 3rd Floor Tower Ii Jeevan Bharti Building, Cannaught Circle, New 2 Delhi. 7 - Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society, 3rd Floor, S D C Building, Opp. New Circuit House, Civil Lines, Raipur C.G. 492001 8 - Deputy Director General, Unique Identification Authority Of India, Regional Office, Hyderabad (Telangana) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Advocate For Respondent/State For Respondent : : Mrs. Upasna Mehta, Dy. G.A. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advcoate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 14/10/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following reliefs: “10.1. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of the case. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the effect and operation with regards t the petitioners/ till the final outcome of this petition or till the concerned authority give opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and set-aside the Advertisement dated 16.06.2025 (annexure P/10) and Selection List dated 23.07.2025 (annexure P/13). 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to pass such order in favour of the petitioner against the respondent as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances. 3 10.4 Cost of the petition may be allowed.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner were the Aadhar operator, since last many years and serving under the District- Mahasamund, C.G. that on 14.10.2022, the UIDAI has issued an office memorandum for shifting of old VLE model working under registrar EA model be shifted in In House Model of those operators who were working under VLE model and no new operator shall be permitted to work under VLE model as mentioned in paragraph no. 8 sub-paragraph no. (I) which says that “No New Operator on-boarding and new activation of client shall be done if it is not following the in house model” that means no operator on boarding and new activation of client shall be done means the person who are on-board shall be shifted. 4. Learned counsel for the State and respondent contended opposed the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the counsels, instead of keeping this petition pending, it would be appropriate to dispose of the petition with an observation that the petitioner may file representation before the CHIPS through the Additional Collector and in turn CHIPS shall decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, rules and regulations, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing 4 to the selected candidates and all other concerned and affected persons. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition is disposed of. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion in respect of merits of the case. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima