ANAND SAGAR BISI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


2026:CGHC:9196-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 135 of 2026
1 - Anand Sagar Bisi S/o Narsingh Bisi Aged About 39 Years R/o Village
Sondelela, Post And Tahsil Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
MANPREET
KAUR
2 - Lokesh Kumar Patel S/o Jagdish Prasad Patel Aged About 38 Years
Digitally signed
by MANPREET
KAUR
Date: 2026.02.23
14:23:29 +0530
R/o Main Market, Katkaliya, District Raighar Chhattisgarh.
3 - Nitesh Khandelwal S/o Rameshwar Prasad Khandelwal Aged About
47 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Manpur, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
4 - Harsha Thawait D/o Gauri Shankar Thawait Aged About 35 Years
R/o Ward No. 6, Madhuban Modi Para, Tahsil Raigharh, District
Raigharh Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Commissioner Land Records State Of Chhattisgarh Indravati
Bahwan, 1st Floor Block - 2, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Director Land Records, State Of Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bahwan,
Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4 - High Level Investigation Committee Through Shri K.D. Kunjam
Special Secretory, Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection
Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bahavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2
5 - Devendra Rajput S/o Nawal Singh Rajput Aged About 33 Years R/o
Ward No. 12, Keshtara, P.S. Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
6 - Pramod Singh S/o Pokhan Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village
Birampur, Rajputpara, Post And Tahsil Bemetara, District Bemetara
Chhattisgarh.
7 - Sunder Lal Ghritlahare S/o Ubaran Das Ghritlahre Aged About 40
Years R/o Village Darri, Post And Tahsil Navagarh, District Bemetara
Chhattisgarh.
8 - Chandraprakash S/o Bahorik Lal Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o
Ward No. 4, Kachari Para, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
9 - Dhaneshwar Prasad Ghritlahre S/o Ravidas Ghritlahre Aged About
35 Years R/o Village Jhal, Post And Tahsil Bemetara, District Bemetara
Chhattisgarh.
10 - Anuradha Baghel D/o Govardhan Baghel Aged About 36 Years R/o
Ward No. 7, Temri, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.
11 - Nimesh Kumar Dhruw S/o Umeram Dhruw Aged About 34 Years
R/o Village Amaldiha, Post And Tahsil Narayanpur, District Bemetara
Chhattisgarh.
12 - Kamal Kumar Paikra S/o Samar Singh Paikra Aged About 34 Years
R/o Village Haranmundi, Post Bakshi, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
13 - Sanjay Kumar Sahu S/o Gopal Prasad Sahu Aged About 37 Years
R/o Village Darri, Kishna Vihar, Post And Tahsil Jamnipali, District Korba
Chhattisgarh.
14 - Vinita Kujur W/o Rameshwar Prasad Patle Aged About 41 Years
R/o Village Urga, Post And Tahsil Kurudmal, District Korba
Chhattisgarh.
15 - Kavita Kumari D/o Umashankar Jatashankar Aged About 33 Years
R/o Balgi Colony, Ward No. 46, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
16 - Archna Kanwar D/o Ram Singh Kanwar Aged About 34 Years R/o
Village Gharipakhna, House No. 17, Post And Tahsil Pondi Uproda,
District Korba Chhattisgarh.

3
17 - Harish Kumar Dubey S/o Bhupendra Lal Dubey Aged About 33
Years R/o Village Pali, Post And Tahsil Katghora, District Korba
Chhattisgarh.
8 - Mohanlal Purame S/o Mithunram Purame Aged About 35 Years R/o
Village Wako, Post And Tahsil Dighwadi, District Rajnandgaon
Chhattisgarh.
19 - Rupesh Kumar Sahare S/o Tuka Ram Aged About 34 Years R/o
Ward No. 2, House No. 23, Post And Tahsil Bhawsha, District
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
20 - Surendra Kumar Ramteke S/o Nameshwar Ramteke Aged About
34 Years R/o Ward No. 7, House No. 30, Palebhatti, District
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
21 - Chumman Lal Komre S/o Shivnath Singh Komre Aged About 34
Years R/o Ward No. 13, Post And Tahsil Manpur, District Rajnandgaon
Chhattisgarh.
22 - Dharmendra Kumar Pausarya S/o Sukhdev Ram Pausarya Aged
About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Post And Tahsil Kakaipar, District
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
23 - Thakurram Koshma S/o Aktu Ram Kosma Aged About 36 Years R/o
House No. 201, Ward No. 9, Charbhata, District Rajnandgaon
Chhattisgarh.
24 - Pramod Kumar Baghel S/o Jhikoo Ram Baghel Aged About 39
Years R/o House No. 185, Bettipara, Post And Tahsil Badekilepal,
District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
25 - Ramvilas Yalam S/o Baswaiya Yalam Aged About 41 Years R/o
Village Pusgudi, Post And Tahsil Baijapur, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh.
26 - Ramdas Markam S/o Dhanatkari Markam Aged About 33 Years R/o
Village Karkapal, Post Hatkachora, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
27 - Doman Singh Thakur S/o Panchu Ram Thakur Aged About 40
Years R/o Ward No. 5, Konta, District Sukma Chhattisgarh.
28 - Prafull Salam S/o Mansingh Salam Aged About 36 Years R/o
Village Naimed, Nayapara, Post And Tahsil Bijapur, District Bijapur
Chhattisgarh.

4
29 - Lokhnath Sinha S/o Karan Ram Sinha Aged About 49 Years R/o
Village Junvani, Post And Tahsil Narherpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
30 - Ravindra Kumar Pujari S/o Arjun Pujari Aged About 37 Years R/o
Village Darapara, Post And Tahsil Bijapur, District Bijapur Chhattisgarh.
31 - Maheshwar Nag S/o Mukaram Nag Aged About 37 Years R/o Near
Krishan Tent House, Sukma, Post And Tehsil Sukma, District
Dantewada Chhattisgarh.
32 - Madkam Kosa S/o Madkam Ganga Aged About 40 Years R/o
Village Arlampalli, Post And Tahsil Sukma, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
33 - Pravir Chandra Negi S/o Kishan Kumar Negi Aged About 36 Years
R/o House No. 246. Khaspara Near High School, Post And Tahsil
Sukma, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
34 - Shailendra Kumar Baidh S/o Sadhuram Baidh Aged About 34 Years
R/o Village Badedongar, Bazarpara, Post And Tahsil Badedongar,
District (Kondagaon Chhattisgarh).
35 - Kailash Kumar Manjhi S/o Nilap Singh Manjhi Aged About 33 Years
R/o Nayapara, Post And Tahsil Narayanpur, District Narayanpur
Chhattisgarh.
36 - Ravindra Netam S/o Devnath Netam Aged About 37 Years R/o
Village - Juganikalar, House No. 42, School Para, Gumdi, Post And
Tahsil Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.
37 - Shiv Kumar Poyam S/o Chamru Ram Poyam Aged About 36 Years
R/o Ward No. 16, Tahsil Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.
38 - Harish Chandra Rana S/o Amar Singh Rana Aged About 37 Years
R/o Village Gudari Para Road, Post And Tahsil Bahigaon, Keskal,
District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.
39 - Pawan Kumar Netam S/o Charan Singh Netam Aged About 32
Years R/o Village Aamgaon, Post And Tahsil Kondagaon, District
Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
40 - Bharat Bhushan Singh S/o Komal Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o
Village Pharasgaon, Post And Tahsil Kondagaon, District Kondagaon
Chhattisgarh.

5
41 - Laleshwari Sahu D/o Mohit Kumar Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o
Village Haradula, House No. 146, Post And Tahsil Haradula, District
Kanker Chhattisgarh.
42 - Darasvatti Bhuarya S/o Harishchandra Bhuarya Aged About 33
Years R/o Village Bargaon, Post And Tahsil Hatkondal, District Kanker
Chhattisgarh.
43 - Prakash Singh Tirasuniya S/o Kamal Singh Tirasuniya Aged About
35 Years R/o Village Bansla, Post And Tahsil Bansla, District Kanker
Chhattisgarh.
44 - Tukeshvar Kumar Bhuarya S/o Bisram Bhuarya Aged About 39
Years R/o Village Karmoti, Post And Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District
Kanker Chhattisgarh.
45 - Bala Ram Jain S/o Vishu Ram Jain Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward
No. 15, Gurunanak Ward, Tahsil Charama, District Kanker Chhattisgarh.
46 - Neeraj Yadav S/o Chandrashekar Yadav Aged About 43 Years R/o
Village Girhola, Post And Tahsil Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh.
47 - Mahattam Kumar Juri S/o Moti Lal Juri Aged About 45 Years R/o
Ward No. 10, Post And Tahsil Charama, District Kanker Chhattisgarh.
48 - Jaiprakash Jain S/o Rameshwar Jain Aged About 33 Years R/o
Ward No. 08, Post And Tahsil Korar, District Kanker Chhattisgarh.
49 - Mahendra Kumar Jain S/o Dilip Kumar Jain Aged About 46 Years
R/o Village Singerbhatt, Post And Tahsil Kanker, District Kanker
Chhattisgarh.
50 - Shiv Kumar Ratre S/o Vishwa Mohan Ratre Aged About 38 Years
R/o Village Chapora, Ward No. 9, Post And Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
51 - Purushottam Sori S/o Yogendra Sori Aged About 34 Years R/o
Village Burjabahar, District Gariyaban Chhattisgarh.
52 - Bhawendra Kumar Sahu S/o Lomas Ram Sahu Aged About 37
Years R/o Village Lofandi, Post Baltukri, District Gariyaband
Chhattisgarh.
53 - Komal Ram S/o Gangu Ram Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 3,
Tahsil Sahaspur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

6
54 - Rawel Kumar S/o Jagsu Prasad Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward
No. 16, House No. 86, Sulsuli, Tahsil Balrampur, District Balrampur
Chhattisgarh.
55 - Preetam Kumar Bhagat S/o Krishan Ram Bhagat Aged About 36
Years R/o Ward No. 11, Kusmi, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh.
56 - Anup Kumar Toppo S/o Ramesh Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o
Village Kamalpur, Tahsil Balrampur, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh.
57 - Mithlesh Netam S/o Rambharos Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o
House No. 30 Atal Chock, Village Parsagudi, District Balrampur
Chhattisgarh.
58 - Dushyant Bhagat S/o Mangal Sai Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward
No. 6, Banglapara, Harri, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh.
59 - Shailesh Kumar Mehta S/o Raghubeer Prasad Mehta Aged About
39 Years R/o Village Darridih, Post Balrampur, District Balrampur
Chhattisgarh
60 - Sandeep Kumar Bhagat S/o Lalsai Bhagat Aged About 33 Years
R/o House No. 26, Main Road, Rajpur, Tahsil Rajpur, District Balrampur,
Chhattisgarh
61 - Sanjay Kumar Soni S/o Neelam Prasad Aged About 32 Years R/o
Bangla Road, Sanaval, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh
62 - Vimlesh Singh S/o Vijay Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Village
Aragahi Khas, Tahsil Balrampur District Balrampur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Adv along with Mr.
Abhyuday Singh, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G., Mr. Shubham
Dwivedi and Mr. Ravipal Maheshwri,
Advocates
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Judgment on Board

7
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
23.02.2026
1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr.
Abhyuday Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr.
Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General for respondent /
State, Mr. Shubham Dwivedi, learned counsel for intervenor and
Mr. Ravipal Maheshwri, learned counsel for respective
respondents.
2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated
02.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
(S). No. 1205/2025 ( Devendra Rajput and Others vs. State of
Chhattisgarh and others ) whereby the learned Single Judge has
dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners, observing as
follows:
“Before parting with this case, it is made clear that nothing
in this judgment shall be construed as finding of fact in
relation to criminal proceeding arising from the present
incident of malpractice in conducting the examination and
the criminal court will decide the case on the basis of
materials placed before it in accordance with law. It is also
directed that the respondent State is at liberty to conduct
fresh examination for promotion from the post of Patwari to
revenue inspector in a fair and transparent manner
preserving the sanctity and integrity of the examination.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that the present appeal arises out of the
impugned order dated 02.01.2026, whereby the learned Single

8
Judge, while declining to grant the relief sought by the appellants,
declared the entire departmental selection process for promotion
from the post of Patwari to Revenue Inspector as vitiated and
directed the State to conduct a fresh recruitment examination,
even though no such relief was either pleaded or prayed for by any
of the parties. The appellants, who are serving Patwaris in the
State of Chhattisgarh with more than five years of experience, had
participated in a departmental examination conducted pursuant to
memo dated 25.09.2023, in which around 2600 candidates
appeared and 216 candidates, including the appellants, were
declared successful on 29.02.2024 for undergoing training toward
promotion as Revenue Inspectors. Upon certain complaints
alleging malpractice, a departmental fact-finding enquiry as well as
a High-Level Investigation Committee constituted on 23.08.2024
thoroughly examined the matter and, vide report dated 29.11.2024,
found no evidence of malpractice, though it noted certain
procedural irregularities not indicative of paper leak or malice.
Despite these findings, the matter was subsequently referred to
the ACB/EOW, where a preliminary enquiry (No. 01/2025) is still
pending and no conclusive determination of malpractice has been
made. In the meanwhile, the appellants had approached the Court
seeking permission to join training pending enquiry, however, the
State opposed the same citing pendency of investigation. The
learned Single Judge, relying on the principle of preponderance of
probabilities and certain observations regarding procedural

9
irregularities, though expressly noting absence of direct material,
held the selection process to be tainted and effectively cancelled it
by granting liberty to conduct a fresh examination. Aggrieved by
the said order, which allegedly travels beyond the pleadings,
records findings without definitive proof of deeply rooted
malpractice, and causes grave prejudice to successful candidates
despite absence of any finding that tainted and untainted
candidates cannot be segregated, the appellants have preferred
the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned
order suffers from manifest errors of law and jurisdiction inasmuch
as the learned Single Judge travelled beyond the pleadings and
reliefs sought by the parties, none of whom had prayed for
cancellation of the examination, and the consistent stand of the
State itself was only that training would be commenced upon
completion of the pending investigation by ACB/EOW yet, the
Court proceeded to direct fresh examination, thereby rendering the
ongoing process of investigation to segregate tainted and
untainted candidates wholly redundant and infructuous. It is
contended that the learned Single Judge has expressly recorded
absence of any direct material on record and has arrived at the
conclusion of the examination being tainted merely on the principle
of preponderance of probabilities, whereas cancellation of an
entire selection process can only be founded upon concrete and
definitive findings of deeply rooted and inextricable malpractice

10
established through in-depth factual inquiry, and not on surmises,
conjectures, or procedural lapses. Learned counsel further submits
that even the precedents relied upon in the impugned judgment
mandate a categorical finding that segregation of tainted and
untainted candidates is impossible before nullifying the whole
examination; on the contrary, settled law consistently protects
innocent candidates from suffering for faults not attributable to
them. It is urged that the procedural irregularities noted by the
Committee were neither serious nor indicative of malpractice, and
were attributable, if at all, to the examining authority and not to the
candidates, who cannot be penalized for technical lapses beyond
their control. The appellants, having successfully cleared the
examination for undergoing training as Revenue Inspectors, have
at least a legitimate expectation and semblance of right to be sent
for training, and the State cannot keep the merit list in limbo
indefinitely without cogent justification. The burden lies on the
State to substantiate denial of joining, particularly when there is
not an iota of evidence establishing malpractice or favoritism.
Lastly, it is submitted that mere pendency of investigation or
registration of FIR, being only an allegation at a preliminary stage,
cannot be a lawful ground to indefinitely stall or frustrate the
selection process, and the same must either culminate in a
definitive finding within a reasonable time or the appellants be
permitted to join training subject to the outcome thereof.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the

11
submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and
submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the
aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by
the writ petitioners / appellants herein, in which no interference is
called for.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the
impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.
7. Perusal of the impugned order would demonstrate that the learned
Single Judge framed the core issue for determination as to
whether the departmental examination conducted in the year
2023–2024 for promotion from Patwari to Revenue Inspector was
held in a fair and transparent manner, or whether a direction ought
to be issued to the State to send the successful candidates for
training. The Court observed that though there may not be any
direct material to record a definitive finding, it would examine the
matter on the principle of preponderance of probabilities,
particularly in light of the report dated 29.11.2024. Upon
consideration of the said report, the Court noted certain procedural
aspects, including the provision for mentioning mobile numbers on
OMR sheets, which, according to the Court, could affect the purity
of the examination by enabling identification of candidates, thereby
creating doubt regarding fairness. The Court further observed that
the number of questions had been increased from 50 to 100 within
the same 90-minute duration, raising suspicion as to the feasibility

12
of attempting all questions, particularly where some candidates
had secured very high marks. Additionally, the allotment of
consecutive roll numbers to 22 close relatives posted in different
districts was considered as a circumstance giving rise to doubt.
Relying upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Vanshika Yadav vs. Union of India and State of West
Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Others, the
Court emphasized that sanctity and integrity of examinations must
be preserved and that systemic compromise may justify
cancellation. The Court distinguished the precedents cited by the
petitioners on the grounds of estoppel and legitimate expectation,
holding them inapplicable to the present facts. Consequently, the
learned Single Judge concluded that the selection process was
tainted with signs of favoritism and nepotism and was not
conducted in a fair and transparent manner, therefore, no direction
could be issued to send the petitioners for training. While clarifying
that the observations shall not affect the pending criminal
proceedings, the Court granted liberty to the State to conduct a
fresh examination and dismissed the writ petitions accordingly.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order,
we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single
Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court
appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable
infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In

13
the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading
of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or
perversities, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order.
9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be
and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet