1 CGHC010161752026 2026:CGHC:33092-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 470 of 2026 Satish Singh Chauhan S/o Shri J.B.S. Chauhan Aged About 46 Years R/C-28 Sector 1 Shankar Nagar P.S. Shankar Nagar Raipur District Raipur Presently R/o Kachna Housing Bord Colony Raipur C.G. ...Appellant versus 1 - Devendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Hathanipara Bhatapara P.S. Bhatapra District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through-The Secretary Urban Administration And Development Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur District Raipur C.G. 3 - Joint Secretary Urban Administration And Developmenet Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur District Raipur C.G. 4 - Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad Bhatapra District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr.Sameer Uraon and Mr.Samrath Singh Marhas, Advocate For Respondent No.1 For Respondents No.2 and 3 For Respondent No.4 : : : Mr.Ishaan Saluja holding the brief of Mr.Sandeep Singh, Advocate Mr.Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General Mr. Navoday Singh holding the brief of Mr.Y.S.Thakur, Advocate BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.07.31 16:57:03 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 31.07.2026 1. Heard Mr.Sameer Oraon and Mr.Samrath Singh Marhas, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr.Ishaan Saluja holding the brief of Mr.Sandeep Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Mr.Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents No.2 & 3/State and Mr.Navoday Singh holding the brief of Mr.Y.S.Thakur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 6.4.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.3143/2014 by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein / writ petitioner. 3. Mr. Sameer Oraon, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, confined his submissions to the limited prayer that the appellant may also be permitted to participate in the fresh selection process. He submitted that, in paragraph 20 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge, while quashing the appointment of respondent No.4, directed respondent No.3 – Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Bhatapara, to conduct a fresh selection process by considering the candidature of the writ petitioner and to pass a fresh order of appointment after holding a fair and 3 transparent selection process. It is, therefore, prayed that the appellant may also be permitted to participate in the said selection process. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submitted that he has no objection if the appellant is also permitted to participate in the fresh selection process, subject to his fulfilling the eligibility criteria prescribed under the applicable rules and the terms of the advertisement. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the only grievance raised in the present writ appeal is that the appellant may also be permitted to participate in the fresh selection process directed by the learned Single Judge. Paragraph 20 of the impugned order specifically directs respondent No.3 – Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Bhatapara, to undertake a fresh selection process after quashing the appointment of respondent No.4, by considering the candidature of the writ petitioner and making a fresh appointment through a fair and transparent selection process. 6. In view of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant and no objection expressed by learned counsel for respondent No.4, it is observed that, if the appellant had applied pursuant to the same selection process and is otherwise eligible in accordance with the applicable rules and the terms of the advertisement, he shall also be permitted to participate in the fresh selection process. 4 7. With the aforesaid observation/clarification, the writ appeal stands disposed of. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the comparative merits of the candidates, and the competent authority shall conduct a fresh selection process independently, fairly and transparently, strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu