Sanjay Kmar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 2384 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Sanjay Kmar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2025

                                                 1




          Digitally
          signed by
          REKHA
  REKHA
                                                                  2025:CGHC:11748
          SINGH
  SINGH   Date:
          2025.03.12
          10:46:37
          +0530




                                                                    NAFR


                       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                     WPS No. 5851 of 2018

1 - Sanjay Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ram Sudeen Sahu Aged About 29
Years R/o Matpara Near Bilaspur Chowk, Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur,
District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur),
Chhattisgarh
                                                          ... Petitioner(s)

                                              versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Commissioner, Land Record, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - The Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District :
Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ambikapur, District Surguja
Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

5 - Vishnu Das S/o Parwan Das Presently Working As Patwari, Halka
Number 27 At Sarkariya, Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Ambikapur
Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
                                                       ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. K.P. Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.03.2025

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

"10.1 That, this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to direct

the respondent authorities to consider the seniority of the petitioner to the post of Patwari from the date whereby the respondent no. 5 has been considered for the post of Patwari i.e. 23.10.2015.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate."

2. Mr. Sahu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner was selected for Patwari Training and he

along with other eligible candidates completed the training

programme on 14.10.2015. He would further submit that the name

of the petitioner was at serial No.1 in the list for the district Sarguja.

He would contend that the Collector District Sarguja issued an

order of appointment in favour of one Vishnu Das who was at

serial No.55 but the name of the petitioner was not considered. He

would further contend that the petitioner was offered an

appointment vide order dated 22.05.2017 and thus, he would pray

that a direction may be issued to the respondents to make

payment of arrears of salary and reckon the seniority from

14.10.2015.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Shadangi, the learned Panel Lawyer

appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by

Mr. Sahu. He would submit that a criminal case was pending

against the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner

was acquitted vide judgment dated 02.12.2016 passed by the

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Board, Ambikapur Surguja in

Criminal Case No.188/2003 and thereafter a decision was taken

with regard to the issuance of the order of appointment in favour of

the petitioner.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the

documents placed on the record.

5. Taking into consideration the fact that a criminal case was pending

against the petitioner and he was acquitted vide order dated

02.12.2016 and thereafter, the order of appointment was issued in

favor of the petitioner on 22.05.2017, I do not find any illegality or

infirmity in the decision taken by the respondent authorities.

6. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

No cost(s).

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha