1 2026:CGHC:25589-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 487 of 2026 1 - Rahul Singh Rathore S/o Shri Tarun Singh Rathore Aged About 29 Years (Wrongly Mentioned In The Impugned Order As Taman Singh Rathore), R/o H. No. 1085, Ward No. 16, Prrana Kashi Nagar, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh 2 - Sanjeev Taram S/o Shri N.R. Taram Aged About 27 Years R/o Ashirwad Colony, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 3 - Ombiyas Netam S/o Shri Sahdev Netam Aged About 31 Years R/o Gad Colony, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Khumendra Kumar Sahu S/o Bhishan Lal Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village And Post Kareli Chhoti, Block Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh Pin 493662 5 - Jasvant Singh Thakur S/o Shri Parashu Ram Thakur Aged About 40 Years R/o H. No. 0166, Ward No. 10, Gram Balodgahan, Post Office - Balodgahan, Teh - Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh 6 - Abhishek Anthony S/o T. Anthony Aged About 33 Years R/o C-1/65, Sector 7, New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - Pankaj Rawte S/o Sukhitram Rawte Aged About 29 Years R/o Village And Post - Vishrampuri, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 8 - Sumit Kumar Khewar S/o Yashwant Kumar Khewar Aged About 33 Years R/o H. No. B/7, Kalyan Sadan, Behind Cross Road, Apartment Amlidih, Mg Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 9 - Pavan Markam S/o Dashru Ram Markam Aged About 35 Years R/o Pre-Metric Boys Hostel, Baniyagaon, Near Higher Secondary School, MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.06.24 13:23:23 +0530 2 Village And Post Baniyagaon, Block Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 10 - Upendra Singh S/o Khamhan Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village And Post Sukulkari, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 11 - Vinod Kumar Yadav S/o Tileshwar Ram Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Behratoli, Shankar Nagar, P.S. Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 12 - Bhupesh Markam S/o Late Tularam Markam Aged About 28 Years R/o H. No. 238/3, Schoolpara, Haram Geedam, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh 13 - Shubham Jaiswal S/o Ashok Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 29 Years R/o S-5, Asma City Home, Phase-1, Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 14 - Bhupendra Jamde S/o G.S. Jamde Aged About 35 Years R/o Behind Nirmala Dalli, Rajhra, District Balod Chhattisgarh 15 - Vaibhav Rahul S/o Nand Kumar Rahul Aged About 39 Years R/o Tulsipur, Sangam Chowk, Ward No. 17, In Front Of Menno Night Church, District Rajnanadgaon Chhattisgarh 16 - Vijay Kumar S/o Jogiram Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 209, Ward No. 1, Ambedkar Ward, Tribal Colony, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh 17 - Sushant Kumar Pradhan S/o Mohan Lal Pradhan Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Post - Sankara Jonk, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 18 - Mohibullah Siddique S/o Wazir Ahmed Aged About 41 Years R/o Plot No. 26, Street No. 7, Panchsheel, Sector B, Borsi, District Durg Chhattisgarh 19 - Bhavesh Shori S/o Shishupal Shori Aged About 36 Years R/o C- 2/2, Civil Lines, District Kanker Chhattisgarh 20 - Rakesh Kumar Patel S/o Shri Yadow Ram Patel Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dhimani, Post Bandora, Tehsil Adbhar, District Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) 3 versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh R/o Gad Colony, Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Under Secretary Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest And Head Of Forest Forces Aranya Bhawan, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhattigarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh Forest Department, Jai Road, Aranya Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Raipur Circle, Zero Point, Near Vidhan Sabha, Baloda Bazar Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 8 - Secretary Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 9 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Wildlife) Aranya Bhawan, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 10 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 11 - Siddharth Bharti S/o Trilokinath Bharti Aged About 32 Years R/o Plot No. 32, 1st Floor, Street No. 4, Banshi Vihar, Borsi, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 12 - Takeshwar S/o Shri Indal Latiya Aged About 30 Years R/o H. No. 23, Ward No. 15, Marartola, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 13 - Madhusudan Mourya S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra Morya Aged About 31 Years R/o Pujari Para, Village - Lohandiguda, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 14 - Yogesh Baghel S/o Shri D.N. Baghel Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Badlawand, Post Office - Pahurbel, Tehsil Karpawand, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 15 - Zaahid Khan S/o Shri Z.H. Khan Aged About 36 Years R/o A-19, Surya Apartment, Katora Talab, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 16 - Pramod Kumar Maravi S/o Shri Sumrit Lal Maravi Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Manjurpahari, Ward No. 2, Post Office Beltara, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 17 - Nitesh Kumar Deshmukh S/o Shri Bhojendra Kumar Deshmukh Aged About 37 Years Ward No. 51, Sundar Nagar, Borasi Dakshin, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 18 - Amit Kumar Kashyap S/o Shri S.R. Kashyap Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Karanji, Post Karanji, Tehsil Tokapal, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 19 - Digvijay Singh S/o Shri Sushil Kumar Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Patel Medicos, Bhuji Bhawan Chowk, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 20 - Vidya Bhushan Kumar S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Kamar Aged About 27 Years R/o Sagarapara, Venkat Nagar Road, Post Pendra Road, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh 21 - Ajay Sahu S/o Shri Ganga Ram Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o 7, Patel Para, Ward No. 1, Dahi Angara, Dahi, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 22 - Raghawendra Singh S/o Shri Narendra Pal Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Majhgawan, Tehsil -Balgahana, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 23 - Vinay Tigga S/o Shri Kashi Nath Tigga Aged About 35 Years R/o Hosue No. 119/4, Chidrapara 4, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 24 - Pradeep Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Murari Ram Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Dipatoli, Tehsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 25 - Praveen Kumar Netam S/o Hem Prasad Netam Aged About 29 Years R/o Q-16/a, Street E M R, Sector 4, Bhilai Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 26 - Aditya Mehar S/o Bhupendra Mehar Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 38, Guru Vihar, New Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Sr. Adv along with Ms. Kanchan Kalwani and Mr. Shashwat Rai, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Add. A.G., Mr. Amrito Das, Sr. Adv along with Mr. Yashraj Verma and Mr. C.Jayankt K. Rao, Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23.06.2026 1. Heard Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Kanchan Kalwani and Mr. Shashwat Rai, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents / State; Mr. Amrito Das, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Yashraj Verma, Advocate 6 and Mr. C.Jayant K. Rao and Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel for respective respondents. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge writ petitions bearing in W.P.(S) No. 7384/2024, 5373/2024, 6989/2024, 7394/2024, 7896/2024, 1698/2025 and 3460/2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/appellants herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Briefs facts of the case are that the appellants, who were candidates for appointment to the posts of Forest Ranger and Assistant Conservator of Forest pursuant to the recruitment advertisement dated 10.06.2020 issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, have assailed the legality of the communication dated 20.06.2024 issued by the Under Secretary, Forest Department, whereby the proposal submitted by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest for granting another opportunity to unsuccessful candidates in the Physical Caliber Walking Test was declined on the ground that such relaxation was impermissible under the Chhattisgarh Forest (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2015. The case of the appellants is that after successfully clearing the written examination and interview, they were subjected to the Physical Caliber Walking Test conducted on 12.09.2023 as part of the final selection process. Out of 211 candidates who participated in the said test, 27 candidates, 7 including the present appellants, were declared unsuccessful. Immediately thereafter, representations were submitted highlighting several difficulties and irregular circumstances allegedly prevailing during the conduct of the test. Taking note of such grievances, the State Government, through its communication dated 18.01.2024, granted permission for providing a further opportunity to the unsuccessful candidates to undergo the Physical Caliber Walking Test. The appellants contend that the said decision was taken after due consideration of the adverse conditions under which the test was conducted and was further supported by the Department as well as the concerned Minister. 4. Subsequently, the waiting-list candidates challenged the communication dated 18.01.2024 before the learned Single Judge by filing writ petitions. During the pendency of those proceedings, the appellants obtained, under the Right to Information Act, a copy of the communication dated 20.06.2024, whereby the State Government took a contrary stand and held that no provision existed under the Rules, 2015 for granting a second opportunity in the Physical Caliber Walking Test, thereby effectively withdrawing the earlier decision dated 18.01.2024. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants instituted separate writ petitions challenging the communication dated 20.06.2024 and alleging arbitrariness in the conduct of the Physical Caliber Walking Test itself. In support of 8 their challenge, the appellants relied upon attendance sheets obtained under the Right to Information Act, asserting that several entries relating to completion timings of candidates bore visible overwriting and alterations, including entries concerning some of the appellants, and further contended that a candidate who had allegedly failed to produce the mandatory midway token was nevertheless treated as having completed the test. The State authorities, however, opposed the petitions by contending that the Physical Caliber Walking Test constituted an essential eligibility requirement under Rule 11 of the Rules, 2015. That only one opportunity was permissible under the recruitment process and that the communication dated 20.06.2024 merely corrected and withdrew the earlier decision dated 18.01.2024 which had been issued without any statutory authority. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants and directed the State authorities to proceed with filling up the remaining vacancies from amongst eligible wait-listed candidates in accordance with law, giving rise to the present writ appeals. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge has committed a manifest error in dismissing the writ petitions and in upholding the communication dated 20.06.2024 whereby the earlier decision dated 18.01.2024 granting a further opportunity to unsuccessful candidates in the Physical Caliber Walking Test was withdrawn. It is contended that 9 the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that although Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Forest (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2015 prescribes the physical endurance standards required for appointment, the assessment of such standards necessarily presupposes a fair, safe and properly managed testing environment. According to the appellants, the Physical Caliber Walking Test conducted on 12.09.2023 was held on a public road amidst active vehicular traffic, extreme weather conditions and inadequate logistical arrangements, thereby materially affecting the ability of candidates to complete the prescribed distance within the stipulated time. It is argued that the appellants did not seek relaxation of any statutory eligibility condition, but merely sought a lawful re-test to rectify serious administrative deficiencies acknowledged by the department itself. Learned counsel would submit that the decision dated 18.01.2024, taken after consideration of the representations submitted by unsuccessful candidates and approval of the Minister-in-Charge, was intended to cure the defects in the conduct of the test and not to alter the rules governing recruitment. It is further argued that the learned Single Judge erroneously applied the principle against “changing the rules of the game” and wrongly relied upon decisions dealing with candidates who had failed validly conducted physical tests, whereas the present case concerns the legality and fairness of the manner in which the Physical Caliber Walking Test was 10 conducted. Learned counsel would also contend that material obtained under the Right to Information Act disclosed apparent overwriting and alterations in the attendance sheets recording completion timings of several candidates, including some of the appellants, thereby lending support to their grievance regarding irregularities in the conduct and evaluation of the test. 6. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the constitutional and administrative framework governing exercise of executive power under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. According to learned counsel, the proposal for conducting a re-test was duly processed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and thereafter approved by the Minister-in- Charge on 15.01.2024, which, under the applicable Rules of Business, constituted a valid exercise of executive authority on behalf of the Governor. It is argued that the subsequent communication dated 20.06.2024 was founded upon an erroneous premise that no ministerial approval had been obtained and, therefore, suffered from non-application of mind and arbitrariness. Learned counsel would further submit that the withdrawal of the earlier decision defeated the legitimate expectation created in favour of the appellants that the acknowledged defects in the Physical Caliber Walking Test would be rectified by conducting a fresh test. Reliance is placed upon the doctrines of fairness, legitimate expectation and reasoned administrative action to contend that the State could not withdraw 11 the proposed re-test merely on account of an inter-departmental disagreement regarding interpretation of the Rules, 2015. It is also argued that the appellants never sought parity based on any illegality nor claimed any vested right to appointment rather, their grievance is confined to ensuring that the physical endurance test is conducted in a fair, transparent and legally sustainable manner. According to learned counsel, the decision to grant a re-test was applicable uniformly to all unsuccessful candidates and, therefore, did not confer any undue advantage upon the appellants. On these submissions, it is contended that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge as well as the communication dated 20.06.2024 deserve to be set aside and the decision dated 18.01.2024 granting a fresh opportunity for the Physical Caliber Walking Test deserves to be restored. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made be learned counsel for the appellants in the present appeal and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein, in which, no interference is sought for. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and materials available on record. 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the writ 12 petitioners / appellants herein observing that that no such technical or logistical difficulties were established which could have prevented the writ petitioners from participating in the Physical Caliber Walking Test conducted on 12.09.2023. The learned Single Judge observed that the test was conducted at the same place, on the same date and at the same time for all 211 candidates and, therefore, the unsuccessful candidates could not seek a fresh opportunity merely on the basis of alleged difficulties faced during the conduct of the test. 10. The learned Single Judge further held that the writ petitions were devoid of merit inasmuch as the proposal for granting a second opportunity to the unsuccessful candidates, though initially accepted by the Department vide communication dated 18.01.2024, was subsequently reconsidered and withdrawn upon examination of the applicable Recruitment Rules, the conditions contained in the advertisement and the opinion furnished by the General Administration Department. It was observed that the subsequent communication dated 07.10.2024/20.06.2024, whereby the earlier decision granting a second opportunity was rendered ineffective, could not be construed as a mere change of opinion on the part of any individual officer but was a conscious and reasoned decision taken by the competent authorities after considering all relevant aspects of the matter. The learned Single Judge particularly relied upon Sub-Rule (11) of Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Forest (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2015 13 and concluded that the proposal for grant of a second opportunity was contrary to the statutory scheme governing the recruitment process. Consequently, the challenge to the communications withdrawing the proposed re-test was rejected and the writ petitions came to be dismissed. 11. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, we find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appellants admittedly participated in the recruitment process and failed to qualify the Physical Caliber Walking Test conducted on 12.09.2023. The Recruitment Rules, 2015 do not envisage grant of a second opportunity to candidates who fail in the said test and, therefore, the proposal for conducting a re-test could not have been sustained in the absence of any enabling provision. We further find that all candidates were subjected to the same test under identical conditions and no material has been brought on record to demonstrate that the entire exercise stood vitiated by such arbitrariness or illegality as would warrant interference by this Court. The subsequent decision of the State Government withdrawing the earlier communication dated 18.01.2024 was taken after reconsideration of the matter in light of the applicable Recruitment Rules, the terms of the advertisement and the opinion of the General Administration Department and cannot be said to be arbitrary or without authority of law. In view of the foregoing, we find no 14 infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 12. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet