1 2026:CGHC:10943-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 202 of 2026 1. Harish Kumar S/o Mansai Ram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Katanga Police Station Duldula Charaidand Duldula District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh 2. Anwar Vipin Toppo S/o Raphail Toppo Aged About 44 Years R/o Amba Toil, Duldula District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner Land Records State Of Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, 1st Floor, Block-2 Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Director Of Land Records State Of Chhattisgarh Indravati Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. High Level Investigation Committee Through Shri K.D. Kunjam Special Secretary, Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department Ministry Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5. Shivkant Soni S/o Shiv Kumar Soni Aged About 36 Years R/o Karbala Road Near Filter Plant Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 6. Shyamu Singh S/o Nandlal Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o House No. 32 Ghulmul District Jashpur Chhattisgarh BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.03.03 17:19:19 +0530 2 7. Mumtaz Tirky D/o Jaiman Tirky Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 13 9, Bagicha Kilkila Nawapara Dhodharamba Post Office Marol District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 8. Krishna Kant Painkra S/o C/o Budhnath Singh Painkra Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 11 Mayurnacha Junapara Pathalgaon, Mayurnacha Jashpur Chhattisgarh 9. Sudhir Tirky S/o Suleman Tirky Aged About 42 Years R/o Jamuna, Jashpur Tapkara District Jashpur Chhattisgarh Pin Code 496227 10. Pradeep Kumar Soni S/o Ramnath Soni Aged About 45 Years R/o House No. 87, Ward No. 3 Baniya Toil Jashpur Post Office Jashpurnagar District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 11. Manoj Kumar Nishad S/o Sewak Ran Nishad Aged About 45 Years R/o House No 39/01 Bhejaridand, Ankira, Jashpur Chhattisgarh Pin 496245 12. Hitendranath Paikra S/o Shivnarayan Sai Paikra Aged About 36 Years R/o Bajarpara Pandripani Kunkuri Jashpur District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Dr. Prachi Diwan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03 .03.2026 1. Heard Dr. Prachi Diwan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State. 3 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 02.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1739 of 2025 (Harish Kumar & Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 149 of 2026 (Satish Kumar Das & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) vide order dated 26.02.2026, observing as follows : “7. Perusal of the impugned order would demonstrate that the learned Single Judge framed the core issue for determination as to whether the departmental examination conducted in the year 2023–2024 for promotion from Patwari to Revenue Inspector was held in a fair and transparent manner, or whether a direction ought to be issued to the State to send the successful candidates for training. The Court observed that though there may not be any direct material to record a definitive finding, it would examine the matter on the principle of preponderance of probabilities, particularly in light of the report dated 29.11.2024. Upon consideration of the said report, the Court noted certain procedural aspects, including the provision for mentioning mobile numbers on OMR sheets, which, according to the Court, could affect the purity of the examination by enabling identification of candidates, thereby creating doubt regarding fairness. The Court further observed that the number of 4 questions had been increased from 50 to 100 within the same 90-minute duration, raising suspicion as to the feasibility of attempting all questions, particularly where some candidates had secured very high marks. Additionally, the allotment of consecutive roll numbers to 22 close relatives posted in different districts was considered as a circumstance giving rise to doubt. Relying upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vanshika Yadav vs. Union of India and State of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Others, the Court emphasized that sanctity and integrity of examinations must be preserved and that systemic compromise may justify cancellation. The Court distinguished the precedents cited by the petitioners on the grounds of estoppel and legitimate expectation, holding them inapplicable to the present facts. Consequently, the learned Single Judge concluded that the selection process was tainted with signs of favoritism and nepotism and was not conducted in a fair and transparent manner, therefore, no direction could be issued to send the petitioners for training. While clarifying that the observations shall not affect the pending criminal proceedings, the Court granted liberty to the State to conduct a fresh examination and dismissed the writ petitions accordingly. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the 5 impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). 10. Pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 149 of 2026, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is evident that the facts and the issues involved in the present appeal are identical to those in WA No. 149 of 2026. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to adopt the view taken in WA No. 149 of 2026 and does not find any reason to take a different view in the present matter. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 26.02.2026 passed in WA No. 149 of 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan