1 CGHC010344102026 2026:CGHC:39633 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6667 of 2026 1 - Shekhar Nirmalkar S/o Shri Birsingh Nirmalkar Aged About 40 Years R/o In Front Of Pree Matrik Girls Hostel Konkadi Balodabazar Tahsil Balodabazar District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary And Commissioner Excise, Commercial Tax (Excise) Department Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Managing Director C.S.M.C.L. Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Deputy Commissioner Divisional Flying Squad Raipur Division Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Collector Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) 5 - District Manager C.S.M.C.L. Balodabazar, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A. Hon'ble Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 10/09/2026 1. By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.09.15 17:35:32 +0530 2 “10.1 That, The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set aside the impugned order dated 03.08.2026 (Annexure P/1) this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to remove the name of the petitioner in the blacklist in pursuance of the recommendation dated 10.01.2024 issued by respondent no. 5 in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the petition, may also be granted 10.3 Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is questioning the order dated 03/08/2026 passed by the Collector pursuant to the direction of this Court in WPS No. 3048/2026 dated 07/04/2026, whereby the representation of the petitioner was directed to be decided. The said representation was filed by the petitioner, who is an employee of a placement agency, namely, Alert Commando Pvt. Ltd and the same was decided and rejected vide Annexure P-1. By the said agency, the petitioner was posted as a Salesman at the liquor shop situated at Balodabazar. Learned counsel submits that the order of rejection passed by the Collector, vide Annexure P-1, was based on the ground that the petitioner had been blacklisted on the allegation that, on the date of inspection, i.e., 25.10.2019, he was present and working as a Salesman at the Country Liquor Shop, Indranagar, District 3 Balodabazar. Learned counsel further submits that on the date of inspection, the petitioner was not present at the shop, but respondent No. 4, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by the order impugned dated 03/08/2026, rejected his representation. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner is not an employee of the State Government; rather, he is an employee of a private placement agency. The petitioner has failed to produce any document to show that he was appointed by the State Government. Even otherwise, the petitioner has failed to produce any document evidencing any order of blacklisting passed against him. Hence, the present petition filed by the petitioner, who is an employee of a private placement agency, is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that the Collector rejected the representation and the petitioner had failed to produce any document showing that he was employed as a Salesman at the Country Liquor Shop. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 5. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner is an employee of a private placement agency and not an employee of the State Government, as he has failed to place on record any 4 document in support thereof. Further, the petitioner has also failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish that he was employed at the said Country Liquor Shop with effect from 01.11.2019. In the absence of any material on record to establish that the petitioner is an employee of the State Government or that he was directly engaged or employed at the said liquor shop with effect from 01.11.2019, and in view of the admitted position that the petitioner is an employee of a private placement agency, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority, if he has any grievance against the placement agency. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep