1 CGHC010359932022 2026:CGHC:35279 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7951 of 2022 Sajjan Deshmukh S/o Late Ramjilal Deshmukh Aged About 58 Years Asst. Grade Ii Chhuikhadan, Tahsil- Chhuikhadan, R/o Ward No. 12, Amlipara Tahsil- Police Station Khairgarh District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board The The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 8356 of 2022 Amar Das Rai S/o Late Sonar Rai Aged About 56 Years Caste - Satnami, Occupation - Government Service, Revenue Department (Asst. Grade Ii) Tahsil - Ambagarh Chowki - District - Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) R/o Kawrin Bhatha, Ward No. 44, Police Station Basantpur Rajnandgaon District - Rajnandgoan Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through - The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector District - Khairgarh - Chhuikhadan - Gandai Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 :Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11/08/2026 1. At the very outset, Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were working on the post of Assistant Grade-II in the year 2014, and an advertisement was issued on 04.03.2014 for filling up the post of Nayab Tehsildar through limited competitive departmental examination. He would further submit that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process, but they were not considered as their ACRs were deliberately downgraded by the department. He would also submit that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners for the post of Nayab Tehsildar while upgrading their ACRs. He would lastly submit that representations were made before respondent No. 1, but till date, no decision has been taken. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the recruitment process was completed in the year 2015 and, subsequently, orders of appointment were issued. They would contend that the petitioners should have approached the respondent authorities for upgradation of their ACRs and both the writ petitions have been rendered infructuous as the recruitment process had already been completed in the year 2015; thus, the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 3. Heard. 3 4. Having considered the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, both the petitions are disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to make fresh representations before respondent No. 1 within a period of 10 days, and in turn, respondent No. 1 shall decide the same within a further period of 30 days. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of these cases. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim