SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 4953

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SAKET AGRAWAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPS/6748/2025



SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED 2026:CGHC:8615 ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI NAFR Date:

2026.02.17 Order reserved on 12.02.2026

19:23:38 +0530 Order delivered on 17/02/2026 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6748 of 2025

1. Saket Agrawal S/o Santosh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 34 Years R/o Street 3a, Sindhya Nagar, Near Mohan Mishthan Bhandar, Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar - Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Secretary Department Of Commerce And Industries, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar - Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh For Chhattisgarh Government

3. The Secretary General Administrative Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar -

Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh For Chhattisgarh Government

4. The Chairman Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, North Block, Sector-19 Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh

5. The Secretary Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, North Block, Sector-19 Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh

6. Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, North Block, Sector-19 Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh

7. Kanan Verma Aged About 38 Years Roll No. 2401100758, Through The Secretary, CG Public Service Commission, North Block, Sector-19 Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar (CG)

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Amrito Das, Mr. Hemant Kumar Agarwal and Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Advocates For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent No.4 to 6 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Manoj V Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Apoorva Ghore, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

C A V Order

1. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that pursuant to advertisement dated 23.10.2024 issued by the respondent Public Service Commission inviting applications for appointment on the post of ‘Boiler Inspector’, petitioner submitted his application to the said post. Petitioner along with respondent No.7 participated in selection process as unreserved category candidates. After completion of selection process, respondent No.7 was selected for appointment to the post of Boiler Inspector. Petitioner has been shown to be at Sr. No.1 in wait list. Challenging selection of respondent No.7, petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“A. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned result notification bearing No. 240/04/Selection/2025 dated 06.06.2025 & the No. release bearing 241/04/Selection/2025 dated 06.06.2025 ANNEXURE P/1 (Colly.)) published by the respondent no. 06 vide which the private respondent No. 07 has been illegally selected for the post of Boiler Inspector (Department of Commerce & Industries) despite him not fulfilling the eligibility conditions because the said impugned result notification dated 06.06.2025 & the connected press release dated 06.06.2025 [ANNEXURE P/1 (Colly-]] is/are illegal, bad, perverse, arbitrary and against the actual facts and the law.

B. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent competent authorities to select the petitioner for the post of the Boiler Inspector (Department of Commerce & Industries) as he fulfills all the eligibility conditions for the said post in question.

C. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent competent authorities not to publish any notification/advertisement/office new memo pertaining to the posts of Boiler Inspector (Department of Commerce & Industries) till the joining/appointment of the petitioner to the post of Boiler Inspector (Department of Commerce &

Industries).

D. Cost of the petition.

E. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted in favor of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that respondent No.7 was not eligible candidate as per eligibility criteria f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top