1 2026:CGHC:15507 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2995 of 2026 1 - Ritesh Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta, Aged About 34 Years R/o House No. 211, Near Sandhya Vastralaya, Barbhata, Godhi, Tamnar District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan,mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner :Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 & 2 :Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Addl. A.G. For Respondent No.3 :Ms. Vagisha Tiwari, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 06/04/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner from waiting list of State Civil Services Examination RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.04.10 18:08:50 +0530 2 2023 for the post of Nayab Tahsildar with all the consequential benefits. 10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit be granted to the petitioner in the facts and circumstance of the present case, along with the cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement dated 29.11.2023 submitted his application for appointment on the post as mentioned therein including the post of Nayab Tahsildar. Result was published and the select list was issued in which the petitioner was shown to be in waiting list for appointment on the post of Nayab Tahsildar. His name has been published in the select list of Mahila Baal Vikas at Sl.No.1. As petitioner was not interested to join the post of Mahila Baal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari. He did not join the said post and after getting the knowledge that two of the candidates who were selected to the said post Nayab Tahsildar have not joined. He submitted a representation before the respondent No.2 on 04.11.2025 for his appointment on the post of Nayab Tahsildar which till date is pending consideration. 3. Learned Counsel for the State submits that he has sought instruction on this matter and according to the instruction one Sagar Verma and Sonal Shrivastava candidates belonging to OBC and unreserved category respectively did not join the place of posting within the prescribed time and accordingly their appointment on the post of Nayab Tahsildar has been cancelled vide order dated 14.11.2025. Public Service Commission had also forwarded the name of petitioner along with one another to be appointed on the post of Nayab Tahsildar against the vacant post from the wait list. Proposal dated 27.11.2025 3 forwarded by the Public Service Commission is under consideration. He also submits that from the letter forwarded by Public Service Commission it is appearing that the records of the petitioner has been forwarded to Women & Child Development Department. He however submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner will be considered accordance with law. 4. On due consideration of submission of the learned counsel for the respective parties, particularly the submission made by the counsel for the State based on the documents received from the Public Service Commission which is an order dated 04.11.2025 canceling the appointment of earlier selected and appointed candidates by the respondent-State and further the letter/proposal of Public Service Commission forwarding the name of the petitioner along with one another proposing for their appointment on the post of Nayab Tahsildar. This writ petition is at this stage is disposed of directing respondent No. 2 to consider the name of the petitioner based on the proposal of the Public Service Commission dated 27.11.2025 in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within further period of 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is for the counsel for the State to submit the order passed by this Court before the respondent No.2. 5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands finally disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi