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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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