1 2025:CGHC:42819 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5117 of 2023 1 - Hitesh Verma S/o Bhukhan Lal Verma Aged About 32 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Office Of Collector Land Record, Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) 2 - Hariom Bhelotkar S/o Nandkishor Bhelotkar Aged About 35 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Collectorate, Land Record, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Deenbandhu Verma S/o Bahal Ram Verma Aged About 42 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Collectorate, Land Record, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - Rajneet Singh S/o Late Shri Janak Singh Aged About 43 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Land Record, Collectorate, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5 - Pravasini Uraon W/o Shri Gopal Prasan Uranw Aged About 34 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Office Of Collector Land Record, Raigarh (C.G.) 6 - Pooja Patel W/o Devesh Patel Aged About 30 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Collectorate, Land Record, Raigarh (C.G.) 7 - Ajay Singh Dansena S/o Teklal Dansena Aged About 32 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Collectorate, Land Record, Raigarh (C.G.) 8 - Vrushaali Naidu W/o Abhishek Naidu Aged About 41 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Collectorate Land Record, Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 9 - Nirmal Kumar Sangode S/o Gopi Ram Sangode Aged About 36 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Collectorate Land Record, Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 10 - Geetesh Sahu S/o Mr. Narsingh Sahu Aged About 33 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Collectorate Land Record, Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.23 16:37:20 +0530 2 11 - Jaipal Singh S/o Jagmohan Singh Aged About 34 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Office Of Collector Land Record, District Korba (C.G.) 12 - Rajani Kashyap W/o Nilesh Kashyap Aged About 31 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Office Of Collector Land Record, Korba (C.G.) 13 - Rahul Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Lakheshwar Sharma Aged About 31 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Office Of Collector Land Record, Mungeli, (C.G.) 14 - Sonali Pandey W/o Mohan Kumar Pandey Aged About 29 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Collectorate Land Record, Mungeli, (C.G.) 15 - Priyanka Toppo W/o Mukesh Kujur Aged About 34 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Collectorate Land Record, Mungeli, (C.G.) 16 - Alok Manmeet Tirkey S/o Shri D. Arvind Tirkey Aged About 39 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Land Record, Branch District Balrampur, (C.G.) 17 - Reena Mahipal W/o Dr. Bhagirathi Mahipal Aged About 30 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Office Of Collector Land Record, Korba, (C.G.) 18 - Nisha Taram W/o Mr. K.L. Taram Aged About 31 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Office Of Collector Land Record, Bemetara, (C.G.) 19 - Mohamadd Juber Khan S/o Mr. Hanif Khan Aged About 33 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Collectorate Land Record, Bemetara, (C.G.) 20 - Deepak Kumar Patel S/o Shri Kheer Sagar Patel Aged About 31 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Office Of Collector Land Record, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, (C.G.) 21 - Dinesh Chandravanshi S/o Shri Rup Singh Aged About 31 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Collectorate, Land Record, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, (C.G.) 22 - Ashwini Patre W/o Indrajeet Patre Aged About 33 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Collectorate Land Record, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, (C.G.) 23 - Smriti Shukla W/o Swapnil Shukla Aged About 31 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Deputy Commissioner Land Record, Raipur, (C.G.) 24 - Brijesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Manharan Lal Dewangan Aged About 32 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Collectorate, Land Record, Raipur, (C.G.) 25 - Gaurav Gulhare S/o N.K. Gulhare Aged About 33 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Office Of Collector, Land Record, Bilaspur, (C.G.) 3 26 - Chhabi Karan Upadhyay S/o Shri Vidya Sagar Upadhyay Aged About 30 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Collectorate, Land Record, Raipur, (C.G.) 27 - Samved Shukla S/o S.N. Shukla Aged About 35 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Deputy Commissioner, Land Record, Raipur, (C.G.) 28 - Khilesh Kumar S/o Shri Amar Nath Aged About 30 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Office Of Collector, Land Record, Gariyabandh (C.G.) 29 - Sangeeta Purena W/o Ganesh Ram Purena Aged About 33 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Collectorate, Land Record, Gariyabandh (C.G.) 30 - Razendra Kumar Kurray S/o Shri Upsingh Kurray Aged About 32 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Office Of Collector, Land Record, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 31 - Nidhi Verma W/o Pyarelal Verma Aged About 32 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Office Of Collector, Land Record, Durg (C.G.) 32 - Raj Bahadur Singh S/o Uday Raj Singh Aged About 29 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Office Of Collector, Land Record, Sarguja (C.G.) 33 - Kirti Singh D/o Mr. Lalan Deo Singh Aged About 34 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Collectorate, Land Record, Ambikapur, Sarguja (C.G.) 34 - Payal Singh Thakur (Gautam) W/o Janarden Singh Thakur Aged About 33 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Deputy Commissioner, Land Record, Raipur (C.G.) 35 - Abhishek Kumar Lall S/o Ashutosh Kumar Lall Aged About 34 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Office Of Collector Land Record, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, (C.G.) 36 - Gitanjali Yadav W/o Harsh Dev Aged About 31 Years Posted As Revenue Inspector, At Office Of Collector, Land Record, Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary General Administration Department Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Commissioner Land Records, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Commissioner Land Records, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) 4 For Petitioners : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 22.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Ankur Kashyap, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition with the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondent authorities to segregate the directly recruited Revenue Inspectors and promoted Revenue Inspectors by means of separating the gradation/seniority lists. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Assistant Superintendent Land Records from the pest of Revenue Inspectors or on the post of Naib Tehsildar, after segregating the directly recruited Revenue Inspectors and the promoted Revenue inspectors by enabling the separate graduation list. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in favor of the petitioners as per the facts & 5 circumstance of the present case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioners are presently working as Revenue Inspectors in different districts of the State of Chhattisgarh. An advertisement dated 29.11.2016 was issued for filling 90 vacant posts of Revenue Inspectors through direct recruitment, for which the petitioners, being graduates, applied and were duly selected after the written examination held on 22.01.2017 and subsequent document verification. Appointment orders were issued on 05.01.2019. Under the Chhattisgarh Land Record Class-III Non-Gazetted (Executive & Technical) Services Recruitment Rules, 2014, only 25% of the posts of Revenue Inspectors are filled by direct recruitment while as many as 75% are filled by promotion, largely from Patwari cadre. The educational qualification for direct recruitment is graduation, whereas Patwaris, with only Higher Secondary qualification, become Revenue Inspectors on promotion and further gain seniority over direct recruits. This results in a situation where directly recruited Revenue Inspectors, despite possessing higher qualifications, are superseded by promoted Patwaris, who not only figure above them in the gradation list but also secure further promotions to higher posts such as Assistant Superintendent Land Records (ASLR) and Naib Tahsildar. Recently, by letter dated 01.06.2023, promotions to ASLR have been considered only from among promoted Revenue 6 Inspectors, ignoring direct recruits like the petitioners. The anomaly and discrimination arising from this scheme can be cured only by maintaining separate gradation lists for directly recruited Revenue Inspectors and those promoted from Patwari cadre. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are directly recruited Revenue Inspectors, appointed pursuant to advertisement dated 29.11.2016, and their selection process culminated with appointment orders issued on 05.01.2019. Under the Chhattisgarh Land Records Class-III Non-Gazetted (Executive & Technical) Services Recruitment Rules, 2014, the post of Revenue Inspector is to be filled in the ratio of 25% by direct recruitment and 75% by promotion, of which 70% is from the cadre of Patwaris and 5% from Tracers. Thus, within the same cadre of Revenue Inspectors, there exist two distinct streams i.e. direct recruits and promotees. It is submitted that the petitioners, being direct recruits, possess Graduation degrees, whereas the promotee Revenue Inspectors, particularly those from the Patwari cadre, are only Higher Secondary (12th pass). As per Schedule-II, Rule 8 of the Rules of 2014, the essential qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent Land Records (ASLR) is Graduation. Despite this, by communication dated 01.06.2023, the Department has considered only promotee Revenue Inspectors, who are 12th pass, for promotion to the post of ASLR, while completely excluding the petitioners, who are graduates and merit-based appointees. The aforesaid action of 7 the Department has resulted in grave prejudice to the petitioners and amounts to hostile discrimination. The promotee Revenue Inspectors, despite being less qualified, are being considered for higher promotional avenues such as ASLR and Naib Tehsildar, whereas the petitioners, who are more qualified, are denied similar opportunity for advancement. It is therefore submitted that the anomaly can be cured only by preparing separate gradation lists for direct recruits and promotees, so as to ensure fair and equitable consideration for promotion in accordance with their educational qualifications and merit. Reliance has been placed upon Annexures P/11 and P/12 to contend that the Director of Agriculture, Chhattisgarh, has prepared two separate gradation lists; one for Graduate Rural Agriculture Extension Officers and another for Non-Graduate Rural Agriculture Extension Officers. Therefore, in the present case as well, two separate gradation lists are required to be prepared. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are seeking rectification in the gradation list of Revenue Inspectors. It is urged that a separate gradation list be prepared for Revenue Inspectors appointed through direct recruitment and those promoted from the cadre of Patwaris, as their educational qualifications and mode of entry into service are distinct. He further submits that unless such bifurcation is made, the directly recruited Revenue Inspectors, despite possessing higher qualifications, are placed at a disadvantage and suffer 8 super-session at the hands of promoted Patwaris. It is therefore prayed that the respondent authorities be directed to consider the grievance of the petitioners and pass an appropriate order for maintaining separate gradation lists of original Revenue Inspectors and promoted Revenue Inspectors. 6. To the aforesaid submission, learned counsel appearing for the State fairly states that the respondents have no serious objection to the grievance raised by the petitioners being duly considered. He submits that the issue relating to the preparation of separate gradation lists for directly recruited Revenue Inspectors and those promoted from the cadre of Patwaris can appropriately be examined by the competent authority in accordance with the governing statutory rules and service regulations. Learned counsel further submits that the State is mindful of the distinction in the mode of recruitment and qualifications of the two categories of Revenue Inspectors, and, therefore, the representation of the petitioners, if made or already pending, shall be duly taken into account and a reasoned decision shall be passed within a reasonable period. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and without entering into the merits of the rival claims, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to submit the representations before the competent respondent authorities within a period of four weeks from the date of 9 production of certified copy of this order. In the event such representations are filed, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the same in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of three months. 8. While doing so, the authorities shall specifically advert to the contention of the petitioners that directly recruited Revenue Inspectors and promoted Revenue Inspectors from the cadre of Patwaris constitute two distinct streams, and, therefore, their gradation lists deserve to be maintained separately. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh