1 CGHC010234432026 2026:CGHC:31383-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 613 of 2026 1 - L.C. Kosle S/o Shri Ramji Kosle Aged About 41 Years Presently Posted As Company Commander, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, 2nd Battalion, Sakri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 1) 2 - Ravi Singh Thakur S/o Shri Surendra Singh Thakur Aged About 42 Years Presently Posted As Company Commander, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, Suraksha Battalion, Mana Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 2) 3 - Vinod Tonde S/o Shri Mahesh Ram Aged About 41 Years Presently Posted As Company Commander, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, P T S Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.3) 4 - Saiyad Ehsan Ali S/o Shri Saiyad Armaan Aged About 43 Years Presently Posted As Company Commander, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, 2nd Battalion, Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 4) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1) 2 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarter, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2) 3 - Shri Ashok Singh Raghuwanshi Company Commander, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, Suraksha Battalion, Mana Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3) BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.07.24 10:23:19 +0530 2 4 - Shri Rajenda Prasad Mishra Company Commander, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, 14th Battalion, Dalli Rajhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 4) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amrito Das, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Yashraj Verma, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.1 & 2. : Mr. P.K. 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 23.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Amrito Das, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rashraj Verma, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. P.K. Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2/State. 2. This writ appeal is presented against the order dated 11.05.2026 (L.C. Kosle and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 7077 of 2021, whereby, the writ petition filed by appellants herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. The facts of the case are that the present case arises out of the recruitment process initiated by the Police Headquarters, Chhattisgarh, through an advertisement dated 18.09.2006 inviting 3 applications for 380 posts of Subedar, Platoon Commander and Sub-Inspector. The appellants successfully cleared all stages of the selection process and were selected as Platoon Commanders in the first merit list published on 08.04.2008. Appointment orders were issued between 21.08.2008 and 15.09.2008, pursuant to which the appellants joined service and successfully underwent training. Subsequently, complaints regarding errors in the mains examination led to an investigation, which revealed mistakes in eight questions and eight model answers in Paper-II. Consequently, the Police Recruitment Board directed deletion of the defective questions, re-evaluation of answer scripts, and publication of a revised merit list on 27.06.2009. As a result of the revised merit list, the appellants were excluded and their appointments were cancelled. The appellants challenged the cancellation before the High Court, which granted interim protection permitting them to continue in service and complete their training. 4. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the re-evaluation and the revised merit list. The appellants preferred appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which, by judgment dated 09.07.2013, upheld the validity of the re-evaluation but, considering that the appellants had already served for over three years without any allegation of fraud or misconduct on their part, directed that they be retained in service by treating their appointments as fresh appointments and placing them at the bottom of the revised merit 4 list, while denying them the benefit of past seniority, back wages and other consequential benefits. In compliance with the Supreme Court's directions, the respondents issued fresh appointment orders on 27.08.2013 and initially placed the appellants immediately below the candidates selected in the revised merit list by order dated 28.08.2013. However, according to the appellants, the subsequent gradation lists published from 2015 onwards incorrectly treated them as appointees of the 2013 batch and placed them below all Platoon Commanders appointed or promoted between 2008 and 2013, instead of placing them immediately below the candidates of the revised merit list. Owing to such placement, several juniors were promoted as Company Commanders while the appellants were repeatedly denied consideration. Despite submitting several representations and obtaining a direction from the High Court in W.P.(S) No. 3832 of 2021 for consideration of their grievance, the respondents rejected their representation on 03.11.2021, granting only partial correction in seniority. Aggrieved by the rejection and the continued placement in the gradation list contrary to the Supreme Court's judgment, the appellants instituted the present proceedings. During the pendency of the litigation, appellants No. 1 to 3 were promoted as Company Commanders in December 2022 and appellant No. 4 was promoted in September 2024, though their grievance regarding inter se seniority and consequential service benefits still survives. 5 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed writ petition, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the principal grievance of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the respondent authorities misconstrued the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 09.07.2013. While the Supreme Court directed that the appellants be treated as fresh appointees and placed at the bottom of the revised merit list prepared pursuant to the second selection list, the respondents erroneously treated them as appointees of the 2013 batch and placed them below all Platoon Commanders appointed or promoted between 2008 and 2013. Consequently, the appellants lost their proper place in the gradation list, enabling their juniors to become seniors and secure promotions ahead of them. He further submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the Police Headquarters had initially implemented the Supreme Court's directions correctly by order dated 28.08.2013, placing the appellants immediately below the candidates selected in the revised merit list. However, the subsequent gradation lists departed from the said position without any justification, contrary to the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court's judgment, thereby causing serious prejudice to the appellants' service career and promotional prospects. He also submits that the appellants also submit that they were not responsible for the errors in the 6 recruitment process and there was never any allegation of fraud or misconduct against them. Having rendered uninterrupted service since 2008, including in difficult Naxal-affected areas, they contend that they have suffered undue hardship and humiliation solely due to the respondents' erroneous interpretation of the Supreme Court's directions. They clarify that they do not claim seniority from their initial appointment in 2008 but seek only to be placed at the bottom of the revised merit list dated 27.06.2009, in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 / State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein, in which no interference is called for. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had unequivocally directed that the appellants be appointed as fresh appointees in the revised merit list and placed at its bottom, while specifically denying them the benefit of back wages, seniority or any other service benefits based on their earlier appointment. The learned Single Judge 7 observed that the appellants, by seeking placement in the gradation list on the basis of their initial appointment, were in effect claiming seniority contrary to the directions contained in paragraph 28 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was, therefore, held that the respondent authorities had correctly treated the appellants as fresh appointees in the revised merit list and rightly placed all candidates appointed prior thereto above them in the gradation list. Finding no illegality in the order dated 03.11.2021 passed by the respondent authorities, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, also perusing the documents appended with writ petition as also in writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu