1 2026:CGHC:7278 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1578 of 2026 Suraj Kumar S/o Sheetal Prasad Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 216, Harijan Mohalla, Tehsil- Bhatha, Police Station- Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarters, Sector- 19, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Secretary Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Chairman Chhattisgarh Sub-Inspector Recruitment Board, Police Headquarters, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - The Station House Officer Police Station- Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.02.10 18:37:35 +0530 2 For Respondents/State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.3/ CGPSC : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 10/02/2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking protection of his candidature for the posts of Subedar, Sub-Inspector, Sub- Inspector (Special Branch) and Platoon Commander in Chhattisgarh, apprehending rejection due to a past criminal case in which he was acquitted on benefit of doubt. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has truthfully disclosed his past prosecution in which he has been acquitted by a competent court, and the said acquittal has attained finality with no appeal pending. He submits that once acquitted, even on benefit of doubt, the criminal stigma stands wiped out and the petitioner cannot be denied appointment merely on linguistic distinction, particularly when there is no suppression, no conviction and no adverse antecedent. Any proposed cancellation of candidature would be arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the writ petition is premature one and has been filed only on mere apprehension that his candidature would be cancelled hence the present petition is not maintainable at this stage. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents as appended herein. 3 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that as on date no final decision has been taken by the respondent authorities either cancelling or rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. 6. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner that his candidature may be cancelled on the ground of his past prosecution, despite acquittal, is at this stage merely speculative. The writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked on a hypothetical or presumed action, in absence of any adverse order or concrete decision affecting the legal rights of the petitioner. 7. It is settled law that a writ petition based solely on apprehension, without any cause of action having actually arisen, is premature and not maintainable. The petitioner would have an efficacious remedy in accordance with law if any adverse decision is taken by the respondents in future. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as premature. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar