Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 06.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – nine young applicants (Manohar Patel, Vivek Dubey, Mritunjay Shrivas, Ashwini Kumar Yadav, Kameshwar Prashad, Gajraj Patel, Ajayt Kumar Korale, Jitesh Baghel, Ishan) filed a writ petition challenging the recruitment process for Constable (General Duty) posts advertised in 2023. Respondents – State of Chhattisgarh (Home Department, Director General of Police) and Timing Technologies India Private Limited (as a respondent agency).
  • Nature of proceedings: Intra‑court appeal (WA No. 548 of 2026) against the order dated 23.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge who dismissed the writ petition (WPS No. 813/2026).
  • Background: The recruitment advertisement was issued in 2023. Applicants appeared for the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) at Sakri Centre, Bilaspur. Petitioners alleged large‑scale irregularities – altered distances for long‑jump and shot‑put, increased height for high‑jump, and reduced time for race – which they claimed disadvantaged them.
  • Representations & investigations: Multiple representations were filed. The Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur (Chairman, Constable Selection Committee) sent letters dated 19.12.2024, 20.12.2024, 26.12.2024 highlighting grave irregularities. A further letter dated 21.01.2025 listed 54 candidates allegedly involved. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (AZAK), Bilaspur conducted an inquiry, finding variation of marks for 129 candidates. Only 28 candidates were wrongly declared qualified; of these, three (Vilas, Bedprakash, Kamlesh Kumar Banjare) appeared on the final select list and one on the wait‑list.
  • Statutory framework: Petitioners relied on Rule 7(6)(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Police Executive Force Constables (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007, arguing that any grave irregularity mandates cancellation of the entire recruitment.
  • State’s position: The State argued that the identified irregularities were isolated, corrective action had been taken against the few tainted candidates, and wholesale cancellation was unwarranted.
  • Supreme Court precedents cited: The judgment extensively quoted Supreme Court decisions (Rajesh P.U., Tajvir Singh Sodhi, Joginder Pal, Sachin Kumar, Baishakhi, etc.) emphasizing that cancellation of an entire selection is justified only when mass irregularities make segregation of tainted candidates impossible.
  • Condonation of delay: The court allowed the petitioners’ application for condonation of an eight‑day delay in filing the appeal (I.A. No. 01).

Final Outcome

  • The appeal is dismissed; the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.03.2026 is affirmed.
  • No cancellation of the entire Constable recruitment process; the final select list dated 09.11.2025 remains in force.
  • The court directs Respondent No. 3 (Home Department) to appoint a senior police officer to conduct a fresh inquiry into the 54 candidates mentioned in the 21.01.2025 letter and the 129 candidates identified in the Deputy Superintendent’s report. If any are found to have been selected by illegal means, appropriate action, including cancellation of appointment after hearing, shall be taken.
  • The petition for a CBI investigation is rejected as the material does not meet the prima‑facie threshold.
  • No order as to costs.

Topics: Legal Recruitment Dispute, Judicial Review