1 2025:CGHC:9127 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1353 of 2025 1 - Anju Pathre D/o Herawat Ram Pathre Aged About 28 Years R/o City Kotwali Police Line Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.). Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary (Law), Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General, Bodari, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee Through Commissioner, Aadim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jati Vikas, Block D, Ground Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Collector Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) 6 - Atanu Prasad D/o Ramashankar Prasad Aged About 25 Years R/o C/o Family Court Judge, Kanker, District Kanker (Uttar Bastar) (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate For State : Mr. Risabh Bisen, PL For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.02.24 10:27:33 +0530 2 21/02/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions towards the respondent authority i.e. to delete the name of respondent No.6 mentioned at serial No. 33 of the Select List (Annexure-P/3); she be removed from ST category candidates; cancel her Caste certificate; and to give the petitioner a chance in place of respondent No.6 under the ST category in the said selection. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the order of Collector dated 17/12/2024 passed in Revenue Case No. 202410010100011/A-6 A/2024-25 would submit that the Collector has rejected the prayer of respondent No.6 to make necessary correction with respect to her caste in Revenue record, therefore, respondent No. 6 who is claimed to be a candidate belongs to ST category and her selection, is not just and proper and the petitioner should be entitled to be a candidate in place of her. 3. Learned counsel for the State as well as respondent No. 3 submit that the order dated 17/12/2024 (Annexure-P/4), on the basis of which, the petitioner is seeking cancellation of candidature of respondent No. 6 is absolutely not correct because the Additional Collector order is only to the extent not to correct the caste of respondent No.6 in the Revenue record as the same was not within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authority. Therefore, only on this reason, the selection of respondent No. 6 cannot be questioned. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 17/12/2024 (Annexure-P/4). 5. From perusal of the order dated 17/12/2024 (Annexure-P/4) passed by 3 the Collector, it is quite vivid that it is only a rejection order of appeal and the Collector has refused to make necessary correction in respect of social status of the respondent No.6 in the Revenue record as the Revenue Authority was not having jurisdiction to make such correction in the record because earlier the entries in this regard have been made on the basis of Dakhil Kharij register, service book and on the basis of occupation of ancestors of the respondent No.6. Hence, it is not sufficient reason to question the caste of respondent No.6 as well as her selection. 6. Considering the above, the writ petition has no substance and the same is deserved to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul