[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Yogendra Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:18508-DB
NAFR
BABLU
RAJENDRA
BHANARKAR
Digitally signed by
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BABLU RAJENDRA
BHANARKAR
Date: 2026.04.23
17:40:10 +0530
WA No. 324 of 2026
Yogendra Kumar Patel S/o Sevak Ram Patel, Aged About 37 Years R/o
Village And Post Lacchanpur, Block Palari, District Balodabazar-
Bhatapara (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur
(C.G.)
2 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, Sector, 19,
North Block, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Chief Cocnservator Of Forest, Raipur Circle, District Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Divisional Forest Officer, Balodabazar, Forest Division Blaodabazar,
District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. C.Jayant K. Rao, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K.Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
23.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant as
well as Mr. P.K. Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General,
appearing for the respondents/State.
2. This writ appeal is presented against the order dated 26.02.2026
(Yogendra Kumar Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others)
passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 10537 of 2025,
whereby, the writ petition filed by appellant herein was dismissed
by the learned Single Judge.
3. The facts of the case according the appellant is that the appellant
applied for the posts of Driver (Light Motor Vehicle) and Driver
(Heavy Motor Vehicle) pursuant to the advertisement dated
18.05.2023 and fulfilled all eligibility criteria, subsequently
appearing in the practical examination on 09.04.2025 wherein he
secured first position in the merit list for both posts; thereafter, he
was called for the walking test on 24.06.2025 for the post of Driver
(HMV), however, since the walking tests for both LMV and HMV
were conducted on the same day, he could not appear for the
LMV walking test and also could not complete the HMV walking
test within the prescribed time, following which he promptly
submitted an application dated 26.06.2025 seeking an opportunity
to undertake the LMV walking test, and although respondent No.
2 directed respondent No. 3 to act in terms of Clause-6 of the
instructions dated 26.07.2023, no such opportunity was granted;
further, no separate call letter for the LMV walking test had been
issued to the appellant, yet the Single Judge, by order dated
26.02.2026, without considering these material facts and the
departmental inclination to consider the appellant's case, held that
the appellant may have been marked absent for not informing the
authorities of his candidature for both posts. Being aggrieved by
the same, the appellant filed writ petition being WPS No.10537 of
2025, whereby the petition filed by the appellant herein / writ
appellant was dismissed vide order dated 26.02.2026. Hence, this
writ appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned
action of the respondent authorities is wholly illegal, arbitrary and
malafide. The appellant, being fully eligible, applied for both the
posts of Driver (LMV) and Driver (HMV), was called for the
practical examination on 09.04.2025, and secured first position in
the merit list for both posts. He further submits that pursuant
thereto, the appellant was called for the walking test on
24.06.2025 for the post of Driver (HMV). However, as the walking
tests for both LMV and HMV were conducted on the same day,
the appellant was deprived of the opportunity to appear in the
LMV walking test and further could not complete the HMV walking
test within the prescribed time. He also submits that the appellant
submitted an application seeking conduct of the walking test for
the post of Driver (LMV), and though respondent No. 2
acknowledged the appellant's absence in the LMV walk test and
directed respondent No. 3 to act in accordance with Clause-6 of
the instructions dated 26.07.2023, no such opportunity has been
granted till date, rendering the action of the respondents unjust
and unsustainable in law. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be
allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge
deserves to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents / State
opposes the 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 appellant / appellant herein, in which
no interference is called for.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.
7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned
Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that since the
appellant had applied for both the posts of Driver (LMV) and
Driver (HMV) wherein the physical efficiency test/Walk Test for
both posts was identical in terms of distance and time and was
conducted on the same day, the appellant was not entitled to be
granted a second opportunity for the Walk Test merely on the
ground of having submitted two applications, further, in view of
Clause 8 of the advertisement which specifically provides that
only one opportunity shall be granted for the Walk Test, granting
another chance would be impermissible and prejudicial to other
candidates, and therefore no case for interference or grant of
relief was made out.
8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for
the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition,
as also with writ appeal and further considering the finding
recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ
petition filed by the writ appellant / appellant herein, we are of the
considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not
committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the
impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be
and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu
