HARISH KUMAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1
2026:CGHC:10943-DB


2026:CGHC:10943-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 202 of 2026
1. Harish Kumar S/o Mansai Ram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village
Katanga Police Station Duldula Charaidand Duldula District-
Jashpur Chhattisgarh
2. Anwar Vipin Toppo S/o Raphail Toppo Aged About 44 Years R/o
Amba Toil, Duldula District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh
... Appellant(s)
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of
Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan Naya
Raipur (C.G.)
2. Commissioner Land Records State Of Chhattisgarh, Indravati
Bhawan, 1st Floor, Block-2 Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
3. Director Of Land Records State Of Chhattisgarh Indravati Bhawan
Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh
4. High Level Investigation Committee Through Shri K.D. Kunjam
Special Secretary, Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection
Department Ministry Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
5. Shivkant Soni S/o Shiv Kumar Soni Aged About 36 Years R/o
Karbala Road Near Filter Plant Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur
Chhattisgarh
6. Shyamu Singh S/o Nandlal Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o House
No. 32 Ghulmul District Jashpur Chhattisgarh

2
2026:CGHC:10943-DB
7. Mumtaz Tirky D/o Jaiman Tirky Aged About 32 Years R/o House
No. 13 9, Bagicha Kilkila Nawapara Dhodharamba Post Office
Marol District Jashpur Chhattisgarh
8. Krishna Kant Painkra S/o C/o Budhnath Singh Painkra Aged
About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 11 Mayurnacha Junapara
Pathalgaon, Mayurnacha Jashpur Chhattisgarh
9. Sudhir Tirky S/o Suleman Tirky Aged About 42 Years R/o Jamuna,
Jashpur Tapkara District Jashpur Chhattisgarh Pin Code 496227
10. Pradeep Kumar Soni S/o Ramnath Soni Aged About 45 Years R/o
House No. 87, Ward No. 3 Baniya Toil Jashpur Post Office
Jashpurnagar District Jashpur Chhattisgarh
11. Manoj Kumar Nishad S/o Sewak Ran Nishad Aged About 45
Years R/o House No 39/01 Bhejaridand, Ankira, Jashpur
Chhattisgarh Pin 496245
12. Hitendranath Paikra S/o Shivnarayan Sai Paikra Aged About 36
Years R/o Bajarpara Pandripani Kunkuri Jashpur District Jashpur
Chhattisgarh
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Dr. Prachi Diwan, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate
General.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
.03.2026 03
1. Heard Dr. Prachi Diwan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General,
appearing for the State.

3
2026:CGHC:10943-DB
2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants
against the order dated 02.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge
in WPS No. 1739 of 2025 ( Harish Kumar & Another vs. State of
Chhattisgarh & Others ), whereby the writ petition filed by the
appellants/writ petitioners herein has been dismissed by the learned
Single Judge.
3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that in
an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 149 of 2026
(Satish Kumar Das & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others)
vide order dated 26.02.2026 , observing as follows :
“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

4
2026:CGHC:10943-DB
questions had been increased from 50 to 100 within
the same 90-minute duration, raising suspicion as to
the feasibility 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

5
2026:CGHC:10943-DB
impugned order. In 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).
10. Pending applications, if any, stand dismissed. ”
They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in
the present case is identical to that of WA No. 149 of 2026, this appeal
may also be dismissed in the same terms.
4. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on
record, it is evident that the facts and the issues involved in the present
appeal are identical to those in WA No. 149 of 2026 . Accordingly, this
Court deems it appropriate to adopt the view taken in WA No. 149 of
2026 and does not find any reason to take a different view in the
present matter.
5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order
dated 26.02.2026 passed in WA No. 149 of 2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan