Selection process tainted by systemic irregularities and nepotism warrants cancellation of examination results.

The appellants, serving as Patwaris, filed an intra-court appeal challenging the order dated January 2, 2026, passed by a Single Judge in WPS No. 1206 of 2025.

The Single Judge had dismissed the appellants' writ petition, which sought directions to send them for training following a departmental examination conducted in 2023–2024 for promotion to the post of Revenue Inspector.

The State had resisted the promotion process based on a report dated November 29, 2024, which highlighted systemic irregularities in the examination.

Both the appellants and respondents conceded that the facts and legal issues in this matter were identical to those in Satish Kumar Das & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WA No. 149 of 2026), which was dismissed by the same Division Bench on February 26, 2026.

1. Whether the departmental examination for promotion from Patwari to Revenue Inspector was conducted in a fair and transparent manner, or whether systemic irregularities justified its cancellation.

2. Whether the findings of the Single Judge regarding favoritism and nepotism in the selection process warranted interference in an intra-court appeal.

The Court applied the principle of "preponderance of probabilities" to evaluate the fairness of the examination process.

It relied on the judicial standards set by the Supreme Court in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India and State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Others, which mandate that the sanctity and integrity of competitive examinations must be preserved and that a "systemic compromise" justifies the cancellation of the entire process.

The Court followed the settled principle governing intra-court appeals, which dictates that interference with a Single Judge’s order is only warranted if there are "palpable infirmities" or "perversities".

The Court adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment in Satish Kumar Das (WA No. 149 of 2026), noting that the examination was fundamentally flawed.

The analysis centered on several "circumstances giving rise to doubt": first, the requirement for candidates to mention mobile numbers on OMR sheets, which compromised anonymity and enabled identification.

Second, the suspicious increase in the number of questions (from 50 to 100) within the same 90-minute duration, making high scores practically unfeasible for genuine candidates.

Third, the allotment of consecutive roll numbers to 22 close relatives posted across different districts, which strongly indicated nepotism.

The Court determined that these factors collectively established that the selection process was "tainted with signs of favoritism and nepotism" and lacked transparency.

Consequently, since the appellants could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity in the Single Judge’s reasoning, the Court found no grounds for interference.

The Court affirmed the Single Judge's decision, denying the request to send the successful candidates for training.

The Court clarified that these observations would not prejudice pending criminal proceedings and granted the State liberty to conduct a fresh examination.

No costs were awarded.