1 CGHC010054462026 2026:CGHC:39694 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1771 of 2026 1 - Yogesh Banjare S/o Shiv Kumar Banjare Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 505, Guru Ghasidas Lane, Gram - Maro, Tehsil Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Aranya Bhawan, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Raipur Circle, Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A. For Respondent No.5 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 10/09/2026 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.09.15 10:39:01 +0530 2 1. By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent authorities, whereby the petitioner's representation dated 20.08.2024 has been rejected. 10.2 Direct the respondent authorities to grant the petitioner one opportunity to appear in the Physical Efficiency Test (Walking) for the post of Forest Ranger, in pursuance of the Chhattisgarh Forest Service (Combined) Examination, 2020, after considering his medical condition and recovery. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Forest Ranger. However, prior to the date fixed for the Physical (Walk) Test, the petitioner met with an accident and, on account of the injuries sustained therein, was unable to appear in the said test. It is submitted that the petitioner immediately intimated the concerned authority about the accident and his inability to participate in the Physical (Walk) Test, by way of an application/intimation dated 04/09/2023 and 11/09/2023, submitted prior to the date fixed for the test. Learned counsel submits that, earlier, the petitioner had preferred WPS No. 4901 of 3 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.08.2024, permitting the petitioner to submit a representation before the respondent authorities. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner approached the concerned authority and submitted a representation along with the relevant materials. However, the said representation has been rejected vide order dated 07.10.2025. Learned counsel further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Mahendra Pratap Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2019) 13 SCC 706, directed the competent authority to do the needful in the light of the judgment rendered in State of U.P. and Others vs. Sudhakar Pandey, reported in 2014 SCC OnLine All 16518, after permitting the concerned candidate to approach the competent authority along with supporting materials. Learned counsel further submits that the posts of Forest Ranger, for which the petitioner had applied, are still lying vacant. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is no rule or circular issued by the State Government providing for extension of the date fixed for the Physical (Walk) Test. It is further submitted that, although the petitioner had intimated the respondents/recruiting agency regarding his illness on the date prior to fixed for the Physical Test, no further intimation was given to him, nor was any action taken by the respondents in that application/intimation. However, in the absence of any provision, 4 rule, or circular permitting extension of the date fixed for the Physical Test, the petitioner cannot claim another date or a further opportunity to participate in the said test. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment in Mahendra Pratap Singh (supra); however, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is submitted that, in the said case, there existed a circular issued by the State Government providing for extension of the date of the Physical Test. In the present case, however, there is neither any Rule nor any statutory provision providing for extension of the date fixed for the Physical Test. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 5. From perusal of pleadings of the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Forest Ranger and was required to participate in the Physical (Walk) Test on the date fixed by the recruiting authority. It is not in dispute that prior to the date fixed for the Physical (Walk) Test, the petitioner met with an accident and sustained injuries, on account of which he was unable to participate in the said test. The petitioner claims to have immediately intimated the concerned authority regarding the accident and his inability to appear in the Physical (Walk) Test vide applications/intimations dated 04.09.2023 and 11.09.2023. 5 6. In the matter of Mahendra Pratap Singh and Others (supra), the Supreme Court has held thus:- “4. We find from the penultimate paragraph of the impugned judgment that the Division Bench of the High Court has permitted for re-test in the case of those candidates who had informed about the ailment on the date of the physical efficiency test or earlier. The relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment is extracted below: [Sudhakar case (supra)]. "27. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment, which is hereby approved. However, it is provided that in respect of Category III and Category IV candidates, benefit of the above judgment shall not be extended to the candidates, who have not informed about the ailment on the date of physical efficiency test or earlier." 5. In case, the appellants had actually informed prior to the test or at the time of test regarding their ailment they are otherwise protected by the High Court. Such of the appellants are permitted to approach the competent authority with supporting material, in which case the 6 needful in the light of the judgment as extracted hereinabove will be done within another one month.” 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, and having regard to the fact that the State has not disputed the intimation given by the petitioner regarding his illness, and further considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Pratap Singh (supra), and as stated by the petitioner, if the posts of Forest Ranger are still lying vacant, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to participate in the Physical Test. Consequently, the respondents/State are directed to conduct the Physical Test of the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed to the above extent. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep