GAJENDRA TIWARI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010377242026 2026:CGHC:46145

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order reserved on 16-10-2026
Final Order delivered on 02 -11-2026
Final Order uploaded on 02 -11-2026
WPS No. 7065 of 2026
1 - Amit Humane S/o Late Arvind Humane Aged About 40 Years R/o
Ashwani Nagar, Mahadev Ghat Road, Behind Raipur, Convent
School, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
-- Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Commissioner State Tax, Commercial Tax Department, G.S.T.
Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt.
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent
WPS No. 7047 of 2026
1 - Maneesh Chelak S/o Mungelal Chelak, Aged About 41 Years R/o
Dondekala, P.S.-Vidhansabha, P.O.- Dondekala, Raipur, Dist.-Raipur
(C.G.) Presently Posted As Tax Inspector At Office Of Assistant
Commissioner, State Tax, Raipur, Circle- One, Dist.- Raipur (C.G.)
--- Petitoiner
Versus

2
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Commissioner, State Tax, Commercial Tax Department, G.S.T.
Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondents
WPS No. 6975 of 2026
1 - Prabhat Chandra Tiwari S/o Shri Ramchandra Tiwari Aged About
46 Years Post State Tax Inspector, Posted At The Office Of Assistant
Commissioner, State Tax, Janjgir Champa Circle, Distt. Janjgir-
Champa Chhattisgarh
2 - Amar Singh Kanwar S/o Shri Jethu Singh Kanwar Aged About 48
Years Post State Tax Inspector, Posted At The Office Of Assistant
Commissioner, State Tax, Korba Circle 2, Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh
3 - Uderam Dhruw S/o Jeevan Lal Dhruw Aged About 38 Years R/o
Village Maruoda, Post Sirpur, Mahasamund, Post State Tax Inspector,
Posted At Office Of Assistant Commissioner, Mahasamund Circle,
Distt. Mahasamund Chhattisgarh
4 - Rakesh Kumar Minj S/o Late Kamal Ram Minj Aged About 49 Years
Bhatti Road, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Post State Tax Inspector, Posted
At Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ambikapur Circle Division
Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja Chhattisgarh
5 - Hitesh Kumar Dubey S/o Ramesh Prasad Dubey Aged About 37
Years Post State Tax Inspector, Posted At The Office Of Assistant
Commissioner, Raigarh Circle - 2, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioners
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh

3
2 - Commissioner State Tax, Commercial Tax Department, G.S.T.
Bhawan, North Block, Section 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt.
Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Janjgir Champa Circle, Distt.
Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
4 - Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Korba Circle 2, Korba, Distt.
Korba Chhattisgarh
5 - Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Raigarh Circle 2, Distt. Raigarh
Chhattisgarh
6 - Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Ambikapur Circle, Ambikapur
Distt. Sarguja Chhattisgarh
7 - Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Mahasamund Circle, Distt.
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
WPS No. 7033 of 2026
1 - Suresh Kumar Gupta S/o Gita Sharan Gupta Aged About 46 Years
R/o A-2/204, Sr. Mig, Vijeta Complex, P.S. New Rajendra Nagar,
Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Commissioner State Tax, Commercial Tax Department, G.S.T.
Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt.
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
WPS No. 7022 of 2026
1 - Ajay Kaushik S/o Shri Achhe Kumar Kaushik Aged About 38 Years
Presently Working As State Tax Inspector, Office Of Joint

4
Commissioner, State Tax, B I U Division - I I, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Commissioner State Tax, Commercial Tax Department, G.S.T.
Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
WPS No. 7058 of 2026
1 - Santu Ram Salam S/o Roopsingh Salam Aged About 43 Years R/o
22 Mandipura, Gram Junwani, Tehsil Narharpur, Junwani Uttar Bastar,
District Kanker (C.G.)
--- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Commercial Tax
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,
District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Commissioner State Tax, Chhattisgarh, C.B.D. Complex, 5th
And 6th Floor, Tower-A, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District
Raipur (C.G.)
3 - The Assistant Commissioner State Tax Dhamtari District Dhamtari
(C.G.)
--- Respondent
WPS No. 7295 of 2026
1 - Vidhan Ranjan Kulu S/o Late Shri B.R. Kulu, Aged About 41 Years
R/o Quarter No. 1884/1, Krishna Nagar, Old Dhamtari Road, Raipur
District Raipur(C.G.), Presently Working In The Office Of The
Commissioner, State Tax Chhattisgarh, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar,
District Raipur (C.G.)

5
--- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Commercial Tax
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,
District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Commissioner State Tax, Chhattisgarh C.B.D. Complex, 5th
And 6th Floor, Tower-A, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District
Raipur (C.G.)
3 - The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) Mahasamund, District
Mahasamund (C.G.)
--- Respondents
WPS No. 7061 of 2026
1 - Chandrakant Thakur S/o Bideshi Ram Thakur, Aged About 41
Years R/o Ward No.12, Bajrang Para Kohka, Near Karma Bhavan,
Kohka, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.)
- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Commissioner, State Tax Commercial Tax, Department, G S T
Bhawan North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondents
WPS No. 7321 of 2026
1 - Satya Narayan Netam S/o Late Ram Prasad Aged About 55 Years
R/o House No. 82-01, Shiv Kumar Gali, Gandhinagar Ambikapur
Sarguja District Sarguaj Chhattisgarh.
-- Petitioner
Versus

6
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Commercial Tax
Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Nava Raipur Atal Nagar
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Commissioner State Tax Chhattisgarh. C B D Complex, 5th
And 6th Floor Tower -A Sector 21 Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3 - The Assistant Commissioner State Tax Ambikapur District
Ambikapur Chhattisgrh.
--- Respondents
WPS No. 7324 of 2026
1 - Toman Lal Bhuarya S/o Bhagat Ram Bhuarya Aged About 44 Years
R/o G-5/404 Sector 17, Raipur Vidhan Sabha District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
-- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Commercial Tax
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - The Commissioner State Tax, Chhattisgarh C.B.D. Complex, 5th
And 6th Floor, Tower-A, Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - The Joint Commissioner (State Tax) Mahasamund Circle, District
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
WPS No. 7114 of 2026
1 - Malik Ram Bandhe S/o Mangal Das Bandhe Aged About 39 Years
R/o House No. 11, Baloda Bazar Road Tigadda Chowk Junwani,
Gidhpuri, Baloda Bazar, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
--- Petitioner
Versus

7
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Commercial Tax
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Commissioner, State Tax, Chhattisgarh, C.B.D. Complex, 5th
And 6th Floor, Tower-A, Sector - 21, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District-
Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondents
WPS No. 7147 of 2026
1 - Neeraj Kumar Shrivastava S/o Santosh Kumar Shrivastava Aged
About 41 Years R/o Gopiya Para, Danteshwari Chowk, Purani Basti
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
-- Petitioners
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Commercial Tax
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - The Commissioner State Tax, Chhattisgarh, C.B.D. Complex, 5th
And 6th Floor, Tower-A, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - The Joint Commissioner (State Tax) Office Raigarh, District
Raigarh Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
WPS No. 7146 of 2026
1 - Deepak Kujur S/o Louis Kujur Aged About 44 Years R/o Simran City
Phase -V, House No. 36, Mathpurena, Raipur, P.S. Tikrapara, Dist.-
Raipur (C.G.) Presently Posted As -Tax Inspector At Office Of
Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Durg Circle -3, Dist.- Durg (C.G.)
- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur District Raipur, (C.G.)

8
2 - Commissioner, State Tax, Commercial Tax, Department G S T
Bhawan, North Block Sector -19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District
Raipur, (C.G.)
--- Respondents
WPS No. 7130 of 2026
1 - Duroopsay Manjhi S/o Late Jagdish Manjhi Aged About 40 Years
R/o Manjhiguda, Post Office Etpal, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh
- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Commercial Tax
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - The Commissioner State Tax, Chhattisgarh, C.B.D. Complex, 5th
And 6th Floor, Tower-A, Sector 21, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - The Joint Commissioner (State Tax) Kondagaon Circle, District
Kondagaon Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
WPS No. 7124 of 2026
1 - Dipti Markam D/o Late N.S. Markam, Aged About 36 Years
Presently Working As State Tax Inspector, Office Of Joint
Commissioner, State Tax, Cirle-2, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).
2 - Ramesh Kumar Dhritlahre S/o Shri Madhusudan Dhritlahre, Aged
About 35 Years Presently Working As State Tax Inspector, Office Of
Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Circle 3, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).
3 - Deepa Udhwani W/o Shri Jayesh Udhwani, Aged About 39 Years
Presently Working As State Tax Inspector, Office Of Joint
Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-5, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).
4 - Tamradhwaj Sahu S/o Shri Nand Kumar Sahu, Aged About 35
Years Presently Working As State Tax Inspector, Office Of Joint
Commissioner, State Tax, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.).

9
-- Petitioners
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Commissioner, State Tax, Commercial Tax Department, G.S.T.
Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondent
WPS No. 7063 of 2026
1 - Akash Tripathi Son Of Shri Shambhunath Tripathi Aged About 41
Years Presently Posted As State Tax Inspector, Office Of
Commissioner, State Tax, Department Of Commercial Tax, C.B.D.
Complex, 5th And 6th Floor, Tower A, Sector 21, Nava Raipur, Atal
Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist.
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Commissioner State Tax, Department Of Commercial Tax, C.B.D.
Complex, 5th And 6th Floor, Tower A, Sector 21, Nava Raipur, Atal
Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Enquiry Committee Through The Additional Commissioner, State
Tax, Department Of Commercial Tax, C.B.D. Complex, 5th And 6th
Floor, Tower A, Sector 21, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh (Constituted Vide Order Dated 04.07.2025 To Enquire
Into Complaint Received Concerning Selection And Appointment To
The Post Of State Tax Inspector In Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination 2021 And 2022)
--- Respondents

10
WPS No. 7057 of 2026
1 - Yagesh Kumar Diwan S/o Late Shri Roop Singh Diwan Aged About
43 Years Presently Posted As State Commissioner State Tax,
Department Of Commercial Tax, C B D Complex, 5th And 6th Floor,
Tower A Sector 21, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
-- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of
Commercial Tax Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Commissoiner State Tax Department Of Commercial Tax, C B D,
Complex, 5th And 6th Floor Tower A Sector 21, Nava Raipur Atal
Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3 - Enquiry Committee Through The Additional Commissioner, State
Tax, Department Of Commercial Tax C B D, Complex, 5th, And 6th,
Floor Tower A, Sector 21, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.----Constituted Vide Order Dated 04-07-2025. To
Enquire Into Complaint Received Concerning Selection And
Appointment To The Post Of State Tax Inspector In Limited
Departmental Competitive Examinatin 2021 And 2022.
--- Respondents
WPS No. 6977 of 2026
1 - Goshivendra Tande Son Of Shri Chetan Das Tande, Aged About 38
Years Presently Posted As State Tax Inspector, Office Of Assistant
Cimmissioner, State Tax Department Of Commercial Tax Circle I,
Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Commercial Tax, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Dist.
Raipur, Chhattisgarh

11
2 - Commissioner, State Tax Department Of Commercial Tax, C B D
Complex, 5th And 6th Floor, Tower A, Sector 21, Nava Raipur, Atal
Nagar District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Enquiry Committee, Through Additional Commissioner, State Tax
Department Of Commercial Tax, C B D Complex, 5th And 6th Floor,
Tower A, Sector 21, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh (Constituted Vide Dated 04-07-2025 Enquire Into
Complaint Received Concerning Selection And Appointment To The
Post Of State Tax Inspector In Limited Department Competitive
Examination 2021 And 2022)
--- Respondents
WPS No. 7049 of 2026
1 - Yugal Kishor Sahu S/o Of Shri Dayaram Sahu, Aged About 41
Years Presently Posted As State Tax Inspector, Office Of Assistant
Commissioner, State Tax, Department Of Commercial Tax Circle I I ,
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
-- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist.
Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Commissioner, State Tax Department Of Commercial Tax C B D
Complex 5th And 6th Floor Tower A, Sector 21,, Naya Raipur, Atal
Nagar District . Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - Enquiry Committee, Through The Additional Commissioner, State
Tax Department Of Commercial Tax C B D Complex 5th And 6th Floor
Tower A, Sector 21,, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar District . Raipur
Chhattisgarh ( Constituted Vide Orde Dated 04-07-2025 To Enquire
Into Complint Receved Co Cerning Selection And Appointment To The
Post Of State Tax Inspector In Limited Department Competitive
Examination 2021 And 2022)
--- Respondents

12
WPS No. 6959 of 2026
1 - Gajendra Tiwari S/o Khushiyali Prasad Tiwari Aged About 41 Years
Working As State Tax Inspector At The Office Of Assistant
Commissioner State Tax, Circle 11, Naya Raipur Division, Distt. Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - Dipesh Kumar Sahu S/o Basant Lal Sahu Aged About 43 Years
Working As State Tax Inspector At The Office Of Assistant
Commissioner State Tax, Circle 10, Naya Raipur Division, Distt.
Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - Ritu Sonkar W/o Arvind Sonkar Aged About 41 Years Working As
State Tax Inspector At The Office Of Assistant Commissioner State
Tax, Circle 06, Division 2, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh
4 - Nandanee Sahu W/o Rohan Tarun Sahu Aged About 38 Years
Working As State Tax Inspector At The Office Of Assistant
Commissioner State Tax, Circle 07, Division 2, Raipur, Distt. Raipur
Chhattisgarh
5 - Omprakash Sahu S/o Dhananjay Sahu Aged About 36 Years
Working As State Tax Inspector At The Office Of Assistant
Commissioner State Tax, Khairagarh, Durg Division, Distt. Durg
Chhattisgarh
6 - Gayatri Sinha W/o Girdhari Lal Sinha Aged About 39 Years Working
As State Tax Inspector At The Office Of Assistant Commissioner State
Tax, Circle Balod, Distt. Balod Chhattisgarh
-- Petitioners
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Commissioner State Tax, Commercial Tax Department, G.S.T.
Bhawan, North Block, Section 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt.
Raipur Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents

13
WPS No. 7056 of 2026
1 - Divya Prakash Verma S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Verma Aged About 41
Years Presently Posted As State Tax Inspector, Office Of Joint
Commissioner, State Tax, Department Of Commercial Tax, Bilaspur
Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
-- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt.
Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Commissioner State Tax, Department Of Commercial Tax, C.B.D.
Complex, 5th And 6th Floor, Tower A, Sector 21, Nava Raipur, Atal
Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Enquiry Committee Through The Additional Commissioner, State
Tax, Department Of Commercial Tax, C.B.D. Complex, 5th And 6th
Floor, Tower A, Sector 21, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh (Constituted Vide Order Dated 04-07-2025 To Enquire
Into Complaint Received Concerning Selection And Appointment To
The Post Of State Tax Inspector In Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination 2021 And 2022)
--- Respondents
WPS No. 7098 of 2026
1 - Monika Diwan W/o Yagesh Kumar Diwan Aged About 39 Years R/o
Rawatpura Nagar, Mathpurena Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
-- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Commercial Tax
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,
Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Commissioner State Tax, Chhattisgarh, C.B.D. Complex, 5th
And 6th Floor, Tower A, Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt.
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

14
3 - The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) Circle 3, Raipur, Distt.
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
WPS No. 7111 of 2026
1 - Lalsay Ram S/o Malku Ram Aged About 54 Years R/o 1251,
Shraddha Vihar Colony, Boria Khurud, Distt- Raipur (C.G.)
-- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Commercial Tax
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,
Distt- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Commissioner, State Tax Chhattisgarh C.B.D. Complex 5th
And 6th Floor, Tower - A Sector- 21 Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt-
Raipur (C.G.)
3 - The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Circle- 2 Raipur Distt-
Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondents
WPS No. 7110 of 2026
1 - Deepak Kumar Turyakar S/o Late M. R. Turyakar, Aged About 46
Years R/o Housing Board Colony, Sejbahar, P. S. - Mujgahan, Raipur,
Dist. - Raipur (C.G.) Presently Posted As Tax Inspector At Office Of
Commissioner, State Tax, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Dist. - Raipur
(C.G.)
-- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Commissioner, State Tax, Commercial Tax Department, G. S. T.
Bhawan, North Block, Sector - 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondents

15
WPS No. 7097 of 2026
1 - Jitendra Kumar Netam S/o Dwarika Prasad Netam Aged About 49
Years R/o Hanuman Vatika, Bhatagaon, Dist - Raipur, Chhattisgarh,
Presently Posted As - State Tax Inspector At Office, Nava Raipur, Atal
Nagar, Dist - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
-- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Commissioner State Tax, Commercial Tax Department, G.S.T.
Bhawan, North Block, Sector -19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District -
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
WPS No. 7092 of 2026
1 - Pushpendra Kumar Karsh S/o Damodar Prasad Karsh Aged About
39 Years R/o Vill- Mukta Tah. And P.S. Malkharoda, Distt- Sakti (C.G.)
Presently Posted As State Tax Inspector At Office Of Asst.
Commissioner State Tax, Janjgir Champa Circle Distt- Janjgir-
Champa (C.G.)
-- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Commercial Tax Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Commissioner, State Tax Commercial Tax Department C B D,
Complex 5th And 6th Floor Tower A Sector- 21 Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondents

16
WPS No. 7080 of 2026
1 - Omnarayan Baghel S/o Guharam Baghel, Aged About 38 Years
R/o Vill. -Thelka, Bandha, Abhanpur, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) Presently
Posted As State Tax Inspector At Office Of Asst. Commissioner, State
Tax, Circle - 4, Raipur, Dist. - Raipur (C.G.)
-- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Commissioner, State Tax, Commercial Tax Department, G. S. T.
Bhawan, North Block Sector - 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondents
WPS No. 7079 of 2026
1 - Anil Kumar Jangde S/o Shiv Narayan Jangde, Aged About 40 Years
R/o Vill -Kapu, Post -Kapu, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, Dist. -Raigarh (C.G.)
-- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Commissioner, State Tax Commercial Tax, , Department G S T
Bhawan, North Block , Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondents
WPS No. 7073 of 2026
1 - Bharat Lal Sahu S/o Goverdhan Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o
Vill- Dindouri, Post Chhatan, Tehsil Lormi, Distt- Mungeli (C.G.)

17
Presently Posted As State Tax Inspector At Office Of Assistant
Commissioner State Tax, Raigarh Circle One, Distt- Raigarh (C.G.)
-- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Commissioner, State Tax, Commercial Tax Department, G.S.T.
Bhawan, North Block Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondents
WPS No. 7071 of 2026
1 - Bhooshan Kurre S/o Bedram Kurre Aged About 36 Years R/o
Village Sonadah, Post Birra, Tahsil Champa, Distt. Janjgir Champa,
Chhattisgarh. Presently Posted As Tax Inspector At Office Of Asst.
Commissioner, State Tax, Sakti Circle, Distt. Sakti, Chhattisgarh.
-- Petitioners
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Commercial Tax, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Commissioner State Tax, Commercial Tax Department, G.S.T.
Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt.
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioners in WPS
Nos.7065/2026, 7033/2026,
: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Amit Matre,
7047/2026, 7061/2026,
7071/2026, 7073/2026,
7079/2026, 7080/2026,
7092/2026, 7097/2026,
7110/2026, 7146/2026,
Mr. Abhijeet Singh Rajput and
Mr. Himanshu Kunjam,
Advocates
For Petitioners in WPS
Nos.6977/2026, 7063/2026,
: Mr. Amrito Das, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Shreyansh Mehta and
7049/2026, 7056/2026,

18
7057/2026
Mr. Varchasva Agrawal,
Advocates
For Petitioner in WPS
: Mr. N.Naha Roy and Mr. Aditya
No.6959/2026.
Grandhi, Advocates
For Petitioners in WPS
No.7022/2026 and 7124/2026.
: Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey,
Advocate
For Petitioner in WPS
: Mr. Parag Kotecha and Ms.
No.6975/2026
Tanusha Pathak, Advocates
For Petitioners in 7147/2026,
: Mr. Vikram Sharma, Mr.
7295/2026, 7321/2026,
7324/2026, 7130/2026,
Jyotiraditya Tiwari and Mr.
7114/2026, 7111/2026,
7098/2026, 7058/2026
Sandip Pandey, Advocates
For Respondents/State
: Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay,
Addl.A.G. with Mr. Vivek Verma
and Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiyan,
Government Advocates.

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
CAV Order
1. Since common facts and grounds involved in all these petitions,
they are being considered and decided by this common order.
2.
In some cases, the petitioners, who were initially appointed in
the respondent department on the post of Assistant Grade III,
were appeared in the departmental examination in the year
2021 and they appointed on the post of State Tax Inspector.
Subsequently, after clearing the requisite examinations held by
the Department of Home, their services were confirmed on the
said post on 14/03/2024. In some cases, the petitioners were
appeared in the departmental examination in the year 2022 and

19
upon duly qualified in the said examination, they were appointed
on the post of State Tax Inspector. Even, according to the
petitioners, they cleared the examination conducted by the
Department of Home, however, necessary order regarding their
confirmation on the said post has not been passed.
3. Challenge in all these petitions is to the order dated 11/09/2026,
passed by the respondent authorities whereby the appointment
of the petitioners on the post of State Tax Inspector pursuant to
the advertisement of the year 2021 and 2022 has been
cancelled and the petitioners were directed to join on their initial
post i.e. Assistant Grade III at their respective place of posting.
4. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and documents of
the WPS No.7033/2026 are being referred.
5. By these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for following
reliefs:-
In respect of examination year : 2022 (WPS
No.7033/2026)
“10.1 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction,
particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing
the impugned Order dated 11.09.2026 (Annexure P-1)
passed by the respondent authorities, whereby the
Limited Competitive Examination, 2022 has been
declared void and the selection process as well as the
appointment order dated 01.07.2022 have been
cancelled, insofar as it affects the petitioner.
10.2 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
declaring that the cancellation of the petitioner's

20
appointment as State Tax Inspector without issuance
of notice/show-cause notice, without supplying the
enquiry report and without affording an opportunity of
hearing is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the
principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India.
10.3 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
directing the respondents to restore the petitioner's
appointment on the post of State Tax Inspector
pursuant to the appointment order dated 01.07.2022,
with all consequential service benefits, including
continuity of service, seniority, pay and other benefits
admissible in accordance with law.
10.4 Grant any other relief, order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case.”
In respect of examination year : 2021 (WPS
No.7147/2026)
10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue
an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned
order dated 11.09.2026 (ANNEXURE P-1), so far as it
operates against the petitioner, the same being illegal,
arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, of
Article 311 of the Constitution of India and of the
Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1966;
10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue
an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to restore the
petitioner to the post of State Tax Inspector with

21
continuity of service, seniority, pay and all
consequential service benefits of continuity in service.
10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct
the respondents to release to the petitioner all
consequential monetary benefits including arrears of
pay and allowances of the post of State Tax Inspector;
10.4) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass
any other order or orders, direction or directions or writ
or writs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice.”
Facts as projected in the writ petition :
6.
(a) Facts of these cases, in brief, are that the petitioners were
initially appointed as Assistant Grade-III in the respondents
department and were regularized/confirmed upon completion of
the prescribed probation. Subsequently, pursuant to the
advertisement, the petitioners appeared in the Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination, 2021 & 2022 for the
post of State Tax Inspector. After declaration of the result of the
said departmental examination they were appointed on the post
of State Tax Inspector. The petitioners also cleared the
departmental examination conducted by the Department of
Home. In respect of the candidates appeared in 2021 orders
were passed confirming their services on the post of State Tax
Inspector whereas despite passing the departmental
examination no orders issued regarding confirmation of services
of the candidates who appeared in 2022. In the meanwhile,

22
certain unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection
process before this Court by filing writ petitions, which were
dismissed and the said order has been affirmed by the Division
Bench in writ appeal.
(b) According to the petitioners they continued to serve as
State Tax Inspector and while pursuing their services, the
respondent authorities initiated an enquiry into alleged
irregularities in the Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination. Consequently, by the impugned order dated
11.09.2026, the respondents declared the examination void,
cancelled the selection process and appointment orders and
directed reversion of the selected candidates, including the
petitioners, to their respective substantive posts with immediate
effect. Thus, these petitions.
Contentions :
7. (i) Mr. Manoj Paranjape, learned Senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners would submit that the impugned order dated
11.09.2026, whereby the Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination has been declared void and the petitioner's
selection and appointment as State Tax Inspector have been
cancelled, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of
natural justice, as the same has been passed without issuance
of any show-cause notice or affording the petitioners an
opportunity of hearing. It is contended that the enquiry was

23
conducted behind the back of the petitioners, without supplying
him a copy of the enquiry report or the foundational materials
relied upon by the respondent authorities. Learned counsel
further submits that the impugned order suffers from non-
application of mind, as the entire examination and selection
process has been declared void and the appointments of all
selected candidates have been cancelled without recording any
specific finding regarding the petitioner's involvement in or
responsibility for the alleged irregularities. The respondent
authorities could not have passed the impugned order, having
serious civil consequences, without following due process of law
and the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, it is prayed that
the impugned order, insofar as it affects the petitioners, be
quashed and set aside with all consequential service benefits
admissible in law.
(ii) Learned senior counsel would submit that the Limited
Competitive Examination conducted by the respondents, was
governed by the statutory rules. The applicability of the said
rules was considered by this Court in WPS No. 513/2023,
instituted by an unsuccessful candidate challenging the said
selection process, wherein this Court upheld the applicability of
the Rules. The said decision was subsequently affirmed by the
Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 558/2026. Learned
counsel further submits that since neither the enquiry report nor
the material forming the basis thereof has ever been furnished to

24
them, nor have the allegations or adverse findings been put to
them for their explanation or response. Such non-disclosure has
deprived the petitioners of a meaningful and effective
opportunity to defend himself, thereby raising a serious question
of violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned
action, having been taken without affording the petitioners a
meaningful and effective opportunity of hearing, is
unsustainable in law and is liable to be interfered with by this
Court.
8. (A) By adopting the aforesaid argument advanced by Mr.
Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Amrito Das,
learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that the respondent authorities issued an
advertisement/letter dated 27.10.2021 inviting applications from
the interested candidates to appear for the Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination for the post of State Tax
Inspector. The said examination was held on 19.12.2021 and
the petitioners participated in the same. Thereafter, the result of
said examination was declared on 24/12/2021 and the
petitioners were declared successful. Upon declaration of the
result, the respondent authorities vide order dated 27.12.2021
issued the order of appointment, whereby the petitioners were
appointed to the post of State Tax Inspector. The petitioners
immediately in furtherance of the said order gave their joining to
the promoted post and assumed their duties. Learned counsel

25
further submits that some complaint dated 19.01.2022 was
made alleging various malpractices and irregularities in holding
the said limited departmental competitive examination for the
purpose of grant of selection and appointment to the post of
State Tax Inspector. The said complaint was made by the
unsuccessful candidates, making various allegations
concerning the limited departmental competitive examination
which was held on 19.12.2021. Learned counsel further submits
that meanwhile, the petitioners participated in the requisite
examinations held by the Department of Home, State of
Chhattisgarh concerning the various subjects on 01.08.2022
and 03.08.2022. The petitioners were declared successful in all
the subjects in the said examination conducted by the
Department of Home. Learned counsel submits that since the
petitioners successfully completed the subject examination held
by the Department of Home, the petitioners upon completion of
the period of two years of probation was confirmed on the post of
State Tax Inspector vide order dated 14.03.2024. Subsequently,
the pay of the petitioners was again revised in Level-7.
Subsequently, the petitioners were informed that the
Commissioner, State Tax, Chhattisgarh, had issued an order
dated 11.09.2026 cancelling the entire Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination held on 19.12.2021, along with the
consequential appointment order dated 27.12.2021, on the

26
basis of an enquiry report allegedly submitted by an Enquiry
Committee.
(B) Learned Senior counsel submits that the respondent
authorities have completely failed to consider the accrued rights
of the petitioners, who, after being duly selected and appointed
to the post of State Tax Inspector, were confirmed on the said
post and had rendered nearly five years of service. It is
contended that the petitioner's selection and appointment could
not have been cancelled after completion of the selection
process and after the petitioners had acquired substantive
service rights, particularly without affording them any
opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioners, being a regular government servant holding a
substantive post, could not have been reduced in rank without
following the procedure prescribed by law. It is argued that no
order resulting in reduction in rank of the petitioners could have
been passed without informing them of the charges alleged
against them and affording them a reasonable opportunity to
defend themselves in a duly conducted enquiry, wherever such
constitutional protection is attracted. It is further contended that
the learned Commissioner failed to appreciate that the
petitioners’ selection and appointment could not have been
cancelled or withdrawn behind their back without granting them
an adequate and effective opportunity of hearing. Accordingly,
the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside for

27
violation of the principles of natural justice and the constitutional
safeguards available to the petitioners.
9. While adopting the aforesaid arguments, Mr. N. Naha Roy, Mr.
Parag Kotecha, Mr. Vikram Sharma and Mr. Rudra Pratap
Dubey, learned counsels for the petitioners would submit that
the petitioners were duly selected and appointed to the post of
State Tax Inspector vide order dated 01.07.2022, pursuant to the
Limited Departmental Competitive Examination and have
continuously discharged their duties on the said post for more
than four years without any complaint regarding their conduct or
performance. It is further submitted that the petitioners have
successfully completed the prescribed departmental
examinations and that their selection and appointment had
already been subjected to W.P.(S) No. 2021/2023 and
connected matters, which were dismissed by this Court vide
order dated 01.04.2026. Learned counsel further submits that,
after completion of the prescribed probation period, the
petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5490/2026
seeking confirmation in service, which was disposed of on
21.07.2026 with a direction to the respondents to consider and
decide their representation by passing a reasoned and speaking
order in accordance with the applicable Rules. Pursuant thereto,
the petitioners submitted their representation on 06.08.2026;
however, instead of deciding their claim for confirmation, vide
the impugned order dated 11.09.2026, cancelled the entire

28
recruitment process and the consequential appointment order
dated 01.07.2022, thereby directing their reversion to their
erstwhile posts. It is contended that the impugned order has
been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice,
as the petitioners were neither issued any show-cause notice
nor supplied with the enquiry report or the material relied upon
by the authorities, nor afforded any opportunity to explain their
position before an adverse decision carrying serious civil
consequences was taken. Learned counsel further submits that
the respondent authorities have failed to appreciate that the
petitioners have rendered more than four years of service,
undergone the requisite training, and successfully cleared the
prescribed departmental examinations, while no allegation of
fraud or any individual misconduct in securing their
appointments has been attributed to them. In such
circumstances, the cancellation of their appointments after such
a prolonged period, without establishing any specific
wrongdoing on their part and without affording them an
opportunity of hearing, is arbitrary, unjustified, and
unsustainable in law. They would submit that in the earlier Writ
Petitions filed by the unsuccessful candidates, the State Govt.
supported the case of the petitioners herein by stating that the
entire examination process has been conducted in a fair and
transparent manner and no illegality committed and even in the
Writ Appeal also, the same stands was taken. Thus, at this

29
juncture, they cannot be permitted to take a different plea.
According to the petitioner, while considering the cases of the
respective petitioners, in addition to the examination process,
the authorities have also considered the annual confidential
reports of, which were recorded by the different reporting
authorites and hence it cannot be said that by giving undue
advantage, the petitioners were appointed on the post of State
Tax Inspector.
10. To buttress their contentions, learned counsels for the
petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court as also this Court in the matters of :
Vikas Pratap Singh And Others Vs. State of
•
Chhattisgarh & others connected matters (2013) 14
SCC 494,
Nisha Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh And
•
Others (2014) 16 SCC 392,
State of West Bengal Vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya
•
(Chatterjee) And Ors (2025) 11 SCC 126
Pawan Kumar Tiwary And Ors Vs. Jharkhand State
•
Electricity Board (Now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam
Limited) And Ors (2025) INSC 1000
• Gaurav Mehla & Ors Vs. State of Haryana & Ors
(2026) INSC 641

30
Airport Authority of India & Ors vs. Sham Krishna B &
•
Ors (2026) INSC 69.
Krishna Kumar Daharia Vs. State of Chhattisgarh &
•
Ors in WA No.448/2017 & other connected matters,
Shyam Kunwar & Ors Vs. State of Chhattisgarh &
•
Ors in WA No.395/2023 & other connected matters;
• Surendra Kumar Kaushik & Ors Vs. Union of India &
Ors in WPS No.1692/2020.
11.
(Aa) Per contra, Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, learned Additional
Advocate General with Mr. Vivek Verma and Mr. Suyashdhar
Badgaiyan, learned Government Advocates opposed the
aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioners. He would submit that subsequent to the declaration
of the results and issuance of appointment orders, numerous
complaints were received by the respondent authorities alleging
irregularities in the selection process, including lapses in the
conduct of the Selection Committee and other procedural
infirmities in the recruitment process. In view of the seriousness
of the allegations and the gravity of the alleged illegalities and
irregularities, the department constituted a five-member Enquiry
Committee to conduct a detailed investigation into the matter.
The said Committee, after conducting an extensive enquiry,
including recording the statements of the complainants and
examining the relevant records pertaining to the examination,

31
submitted its comprehensive report dated 03.07.2026 before the
Commissioner, State Tax, Commercial Tax Department,
Chhattisgarh, identifying several serious and apparent
irregularities in the recruitment process. Accordingly, upon
consideration of the findings recorded in the enquiry report, the
respondent authorities passed the impugned order dated
11.09.2026, whereby the examination conducted for recruitment
of employees from the Clerical Cadre to the post of Commercial
(State) Tax Inspector was cancelled, along with the
consequential appointment orders issued to the selected
candidates.
(Ab) Learned counsel submits that the impugned decision was
not taken arbitrarily or merely on the basis of complaints
received after the declaration of the results. Rather, the decision
was preceded by a detailed fact-finding exercise undertaken by
a duly constituted five-member Enquiry Committee, which
culminated in the submission of its report dated 03.07.2026. The
impugned order was founded upon the findings of the enquiry
conducted into the alleged irregularities and was issued in the
interest of maintaining the sanctity, fairness, and transparency of
the recruitment process. Learned counsel for the respondents
placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
State of Assam & Others v. Arabinda Rabha & Others ,
reported in (2025) 7 SCC 705, wherein the Supreme Court
considered the scope of judicial review over a decision taken by

32
the State Government to cancel a selection list on account of
identified illegalities and irregularities in the recruitment process.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
pleadings and the enquiry reports dated 03/07/2026.
Analysis:
13. From the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and the material available on record, it emerges that the
petitioners, who were initially appointed to the post of Assistant
Grade-III (clerical cadre) in the Commercial Tax Department,
participated in the Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination conducted for appointment to the post of State Tax
Inspector and were declared successful. Consequent thereto,
appointment orders were issued in their favour, and they joined
their respective posts. It is the specific case of the petitioners
that, after successfully completing the prescribed departmental
examinations and probationary period, some petitioners were
confirmed in service and some petitioners are still not confirmed;
and continued to discharge their duties as State Tax Inspectors.
According to them, in view of their selection, appointment,
confirmation and continued service, the respondent authorities
could not have cancelled their appointments and directed their
reversion to their substantive posts without affording them an
opportunity of hearing.

33
14. On the other hand, the respondent authorities have justified the
impugned action on the ground that, after declaration of the
results and issuance of appointment orders, several complaints
alleging serious irregularities in the selection process were
received. In view of the nature of the allegations, a five-member
Enquiry Committee was constituted, which conducted an
enquiry, examined the relevant records and recorded the
statements of the complainants. The Committee thereafter
submitted its report dated 03.07.2026 before the Commissioner,
State Tax, Commercial Tax Department, Chhattisgarh,
identifying serious irregularities in the recruitment process. The
impugned order dated 11.09.2026 was thereafter passed on
consideration of the findings recorded in the said report.
15.
Upon perusal of enquiry report dated 03/07/2026 of the Limited
Departmental Examination of the year 2021, it was found that
the examination process exhibited serious procedural
irregularities. The answer booklets were brought from the
examination centre sealed but uncoded, and the seals were
opened for coding before evaluation, contrary to the prescribed
procedure. The coding failed to conceal candidates' names and
roll numbers. The coding should have been carried out at the
examination centre immediately after the conclusion of the
examination, following which the answer booklets should have
been sealed. However, if the answer booklets had been brought
from the examination centre in a sealed condition, the seals

34
must have been opened to carry out the coding. Such a
procedure is not in conformity with the established standards of
any examination system. Thus, the procedure for the custody
and handling of the answer booklets was defective, making it
possible for the answer booklets to be replaced easily.
Furthermore, the answer booklets were of an extremely ordinary
nature, were readily available in the open market, and were not
suitable for use in an examination.
16. The findings of the Committee exposed an unauthorized re-
evaluation process involving the fraudulent manual alteration of
marks in the answer sheets. Immediately before the declaration
of the final results, an illegal re-evaluation of 22 answer sheets
was conducted by members of the Selection Committee
themselves, without the involvement of independent examiners.
During this process, physical evidence of tampering with marks
was discovered, wherein the original marks had been struck out
and replaced with higher marks manually using a red pen. the
Committee ultimately found that the appointments had been
made in flagrant violation of the statutory reservation roster and
constitutionally mandated reservation quotas. The Selection
Committee failed to allocate 30 available vacancies in
accordance with the prescribed reservation quotas for
Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other
Backward Classes (OBC). These violations constitute serious
departures from the applicable statutory framework governing

35
the selection process and undermine the legality and fairness of
the appointments made pursuant thereto.
17. Moreover, upon perusal of enquiry report dated 03/07/2026 of
the Limited Departmental Examination of the year 2022, it was
found in the enquiry report that only the signatures of the
invigilators were affixed thereon. The names of the invigilators
had not been mentioned, nor had the seal of the examination
centre been affixed to the answer sheets. Consequently, there
was no evidence to establish that the answers in the said
answer sheets had actually been written at Pandit J.N. Pandey
Government Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Raipur,
which was stated to be the examination centre. There was also
no evidence to establish the identity of the invigilators. In certain
answer sheets, it was found that the signatures of different
invigilators appeared on the first and last pages. This was an
unusual circumstance. After the examination had been
conducted at the examination centre, the answer sheets ought
to have been coded and sealed; however, neither the note
sheets nor the official files contained any evidence to establish
that the answer sheets had been coded and sealed at the
examination centre.
18. In the said report, as per the statement of the Centre
Superintendent, the sealed envelopes containing the question
papers received from the Department were opened in the
control room, and the question papers were distributed by the

36
officers deputed by the Department in accordance with the
seating arrangement. The Department maintained the relevant
record thereof. Only the prescribed number of question papers
were supplied to the examination centre. With regard to the
maintenance of records concerning the answer sheets, it was
stated that the examination centre had not maintained any such
records. No information was made available as to whether the
Department had maintained any records relating thereto. The
officers who evaluated the answer sheets informed the Enquiry
Committee that they had been summoned over the telephone
for the purpose of evaluating the answer sheets and that no
written orders had been issued to them in this regard. Under the
rules governing the Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination, the evaluators were required to be nominated by
the Commissioner. However, no evaluator had been nominated
by the Commissioner. This was contrary to the provisions of the
applicable recruitment rules.
19. It is also apparent from the report that neither the note sheets nor
the official records contained any mention of the number of
candidates who appeared in the First Paper and the Second
Paper. According to the official records produced before the
Enquiry Committee, 22 answer sheets in the First Paper and 15
answer sheets in the Second Paper had been re-evaluated. The
scheme of examination prescribed under Schedule IV contained
no provision for re-evaluation. Further, the note sheets prepared

37
by the Selection Committee did not contain any reference to the
circumstances necessitating re-evaluation, the criteria or
grounds for re-evaluation, the orders appointing evaluators for
re-evaluation, or the approval granted for undertaking such re-
evaluation. The answer sheets were re-evaluated before the
publication of the selection list, which was not in accordance
with law. The answer sheets consisted of 24 pages of ordinary
paper. The candidates had not signed the answer sheets.
Further, since the pages were neither numbered nor bound
together and consisted of separate sheets, they could easily be
detached from the sheets containing the candidates' particulars
and marks obtained by them. The total number of answer sheets
used and remaining were 1,497, whereas the number of answer
sheets purchased were only 1,300. Thus, there was a difference
of 197 answer sheets. The use of answer sheets in excess of the
number purchased, without maintaining proper accounts and
without obtaining the approval of the competent authority,
vitiated the examination conducted. The accounts relating to the
answer sheets had not been maintained at the examination
centre, nor was any record found to indicate that such accounts
had been maintained elsewhere.
20. It is further evident from the said enquiry report that for the
purpose of preparing the question papers for the Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination, question papers and
model answers had been obtained separately from different

38
officers. The final question papers and model answers were
thereafter prepared on the basis of the question papers and
model answers received from those officers. Consequently, the
final question papers could not be matched verbatim with any
single consolidated source book. However, the answers written
by certain candidates in their answer sheets were found to
correspond exactly, word to word, with the model answers.
According to the Enquiry Committee, this established that the
said candidates had received the model answers before the
examination.
21. With regard to contention raised by Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned
counsel for the petitioners that the case of present petitioners is
similar to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the
matters of Pawan Kumar Tiwari (supra) and the decision
rendered by the Supreme Court in Baishakhi Bhattacharyya
(supra), is concerned, the same will not be applicable in these
petitions. A bare perusal of both the decisions rendered by the
Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Tiwari (supra) and
Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (supra), it appears that in the case of
Pawan Kumar Tiwari (supra), the candidate therein fulfilled the
eligibility condition and were appointed through a transparent
internal selection process and were within the sanctioned cadre
strength and also were not found guilty of any misconduct or
fraud, whereas, in the cases at hand, the internal recruitment
process itself is in question and there is a categorical finding with

39
regard to the malpractices in the examination and hence, the
observation made by the Supreme Court in the Baishakhi
Bhattacharyya (supra) will be squarely applicable in the cases
at hand.
22.
It is worthwhile to mention here that the Government was well
within its right to cancel the process, for, serious irregularities
had crept in, tainting the process and in such circumstances, the
cancellation of the process cannot be faulted merely on the
ground that the irregularities were curable.
23. In the cases at hand, the Government had taken a decision to
cancel the appointment on the post of State Tax Inspector
pursuance to the advertisements issued in the year 2021 and
2022. In this regard, it is noteworthy to mention here that in the
decision making, a possible three options were available to the
Government, being - (i) allow the process to be taken to its
logical conclusion, without being unduly bothered by the
illegalities/irregularities detected and referred to by the Enquiry
Committee; (ii) cancel the entire process and start it a new; and
(iii) separate the grain from the chaff and to proceed with the
former and complete the process. No doubt, the Government
could have set right the process by preferring the third option.
However, once the Government arrived at the decision
considering the illegalities/irregularities detected by the Enquiry
Committee that the process ought to be started afresh and
preferred the second option to the first and third options, thereby

40
cancelling the previous process, this Court is required to see
that the proportionality test to adjudge whether the perfect
balance was struck by preferring that option out of the other
available options. In the cases at hand, more than 500
candidates appeared in the examination conducted in 2021 and
2022 and hence, at this juncture, it cannot be possible to
segregate the wrongdoers and even in that process, the
innocent candidates may suffer adversely.
24. A bare perusal of the material available on record, it is manifest
that no person of reasonable prudence would be left in doubt
that the process had a coat of discernible taint suggesting
impropriety and bias, if not corruption; and applying the test of
proportionality, the decision taken by the Government of
cancelling the process initiated by the earlier cannot be said to
be so disproportionate and incommensurate with the illegalities/
irregularities detected that interference could have been said to
be legitimately warranted.
25. Having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of
the parties and upon perusal of the enquiry reports, this Court
finds that the decision of the respondent authorities to cancel the
recruitment examination was preceded by a detailed enquiry
conducted by a duly constituted five-member Enquiry
Committee. The said Committee, after examining the relevant
records and recording the statements of the complainants,

41
submitted its reports, identifying ‘n’ number of serious
irregularities in the recruitment process.
26. The task of the petitioners to succeed in these petitions under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India gets more difficult and
complicated when considered keeping in mind the nature of
allegations and the findings of the enquiry report wherein the five
members enquiry committee has found large scale illegalities
and irregularities in conduct of examination, award of marks and
preparation of result. The magnitude and the illegalities are all
pervasive and have spuriated the sanctity of the selection
process as a whole.
27. The Supreme court in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Others
Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2006) 11 SCC 356
held thus:
“40. We at the outset would furthermore notice that
having regard to the submissions made before us by
Mr Dwivedi and Mr Rao that the services of the
appellants before us were terminated not in terms of
the rules but in view of the commission of illegality in
the selection process involved, we need not consider
the applicability of the relevant provisions of the
statutes as also the effect of the provisions of Article
311 of the Constitution of India. An appointment
made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India would be void. It would be a
nullity. [See Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3).] But before such a finding can be arrived at, the
appointing authority must take into consideration the

42
foundational facts. Only when such foundational
facts are established, the legal principles can be
applied.
41. If the services of the appointees who had put in
few years of service were terminated, compliance
with three principles at the hands of the State was
imperative viz. (1) to establish satisfaction in regard
to the sufficiency of the materials collected so as to
enable the State to arrive at its satisfaction that the
selection process was tainted; (2) to determine the
question that the illegalities committed go to the root
of the matter which vitiate the entire selection
process. Such satisfaction as also the sufficiency of
materials were required to be gathered by reason of a
thorough investigation in a fair and transparent
manner; (3) whether the sufficient material present
enabled the State to arrive at a satisfaction that the
officers in majority have been found to be part of the
fraudulent purpose or the system itself was corrupt.
28.
In Krishan Yadav and Another v. State of Haryana and
Others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 165 , the Supreme Court held
thus :,
“20. In the above circumstances, what are we to
do? The only proper course open to us is to set
aside the entire selection. The plea was made that
innocent candidates should not be penalised for
the misdeeds of others. We are unable to accept
this argument. When the entire selection is
stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit,
individual innocence has no place as "fraud
unravels everything". To put it in other words, the

43
entire selection is arbitrary. It is that which is faulted
and not the individual candidates. Accordingly we
hereby set aside the selection of Taxation
Inspectors.”
29.
The Supreme Court in The Bihar School Examination Board
v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Others reported in 1970 (1)
SCC 648 , held thus:
“15. We are satisfied that no principle of natural
justice was violated in this case. The Board
through its Chairman and later itself reached the
right conclusion that the examinations at this
Centre had been vitiated by practising unfair
means on a mass scale and the Board had every
right to cancel the examination and order that a
fresh examination be held. There was no need to
give the examinees an opportunity of contesting
this conclusion because the evidence in the case
was perfectly plain and transparent. We therefore
set aside the order of the High Court and ordered
dismissal of the writ petition but made no order as
to costs.”
30.
In Union of India and Others v. O. Chakradhar reported in
(2002) 3 SCC 146 , the Supreme Court held thus:
“8. In our view the nature and the extent of
illegalities and irregularities committed in
conducting a selection will have to be scrutinized
in each case so as to come to a conclusion about
future course of action to be adopted in the
matter. If the mischief played is so widespread
and all-pervasive, affecting the result, so as to
make it difficult to pick out the persons who have

44
been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived
of their selection, in such cases it will neither be
possible nor necessary to issue individual show-
cause notices to each selectee. The only way out
would be to cancel the whole selection. Motive
behind the irregularities committed also has its
relevance.”
(Emphasis supplied)
31.
In the facts and circumstances of the present cases, this Court
finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order
dated 11.09.2026, whereby the recruitment examination
conducted for promotion of employees from the Clerical Cadre
to the post of State Tax Inspector, along with the consequential
appointment orders, was cancelled. The decision, having been
taken upon consideration of the findings recorded in the enquiry
report, cannot be set aside merely on the ground that the
irregularities might have been capable of rectification,
particularly when the competent authorities considered the
irregularities serious enough to warrant cancellation of the entire
process. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in all these writ
petitions.
32. As an upshot, all the writ petitions, sans substratum , are liable to
be and are hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their
own cost(s).
33. It is however made clear since cancellation of the recruitment
process may adversely affect the service prospects of the

45
eligible candidates, the respondent authorities are directed to
initiate a fresh recruitment process, in accordance with law and
as per the applicable rules, and conclude the same
expeditiously, without any unnecessary delay.
34.
It is further made clear that the fresh recruitment process shall
be conducted in a fair, transparent, and impartial manner,
ensuring strict compliance with the applicable rules and
procedures.
SD/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
Gowri/
Amardeep