Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9666 (CHH)

CHHOLE LAL YADAV v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/8209/2022 · 2026-04-29

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:20115 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8209 of 2022  Chhole Lal Yadav S/o Rameshwar Yadav Aged About 32 Years Assistant Grade - Iii At Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Rajpur, Tahsil And P.S. - Rajpur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Tribal Welfare, Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Assistant Commissioner, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Balrampur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3. The Commissioner Surguja Division Ambikapur (Chhattisgarh) 4. The Collector Balrampur, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30.4.2026 1. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that the issue involved in this petition is no longer res Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.04.30 14:31:52 +0530 2 integra and this petition is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this court in batch of writ petitions leading case of which being WPS No. 5769 of 2018 parties being Aakhilesh Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others which was decided on 19.3.2026. 2. In the light of the submission made herein-above, this Court is of the opinion that this petition is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in WPS No. 5769 of 2018 & bunch of petitions decided on 19.3.2026 in case of Aakhilesh Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others. 3. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in terms of the order passed by this Court in the case of Aakhilesh (supra) holding that the petitioner’s appointment, having being made against the post not forming part of the original advertisement and after the conclusion of the selection process, is legally unsustainable and no interference is warranted with the order passed by the Commissioner. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a