2026:CGHC:8308 Digitally signed by NAFR YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date:

2026.02.23

19:00:53 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR +0530 WPS No. 1657 of 2023 Jitendra Singh Thakur S/o Shri Bharat Singh Thakur, Aged About 43 Years R/o Near Hari Om Provision Store, Maitri Nagar, Raipura Chowk Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department of Power, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited Through The Managing Director, Head Quarter Danganiya, Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

3 - Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Through The Managing Director, Head Quarter Danganiya, Raipur District -

Raipur Chhattisgarh

4 - Deputy General Manager (H/R), II, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company, Head Quarter Danganiya, Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

5 - Chetna Sahu Office Assistant Grade - II, Executive Director, (S & P), State Load Dispatch Centre Building, CSPTCL Danganiya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

6 - Kushma Yadav Office Assistant Grade - II, CSPTCL West - Zone City Division, Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur, District - Ambikapur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

Order on Board

16.02.2026

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner calls in question the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 03.07.2014 issued by respondent No. 4 whereby respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have been appointed instead of petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 03.07.2014 (ANNEXURE P/1), issued by respondent No. 4, to the extent it relates to respondent no.4 & 5 and further be pleased to direct the respondents give appointment/promotion to the petitioner from 03.07.2014 with all consequential benefits including seniority and financial benefits, in the interest of justice.

10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the petitioner was initially appointed on a Class-IV post under respondent No. 2 Company vide order dated 29.10.2009. Thereafter, as a Class-IV technical employee, the petitioner continuously discharged his duties in the field with utmost sincerity and dedication. Owing to exigencies of work, he was often required to work even on holidays and remained primarily stationed outside the office, due to which he could not remain fully apprised of official records and proceedings in detail. On 07.02.2014, the respondent Company issued an advertisement/circular for conducting a departmental examination for appointment to 16 Class-III posts. Being eligible and qualified, the petitioner participated in the said selection process. The selection was to be based on a written examination and typing test, after which a merit list was to be prepared in accordance with law, reflecting marks obtained by candidates and application of the reservation policy of the State, including horizontal and compartment-wise reservations.

3. However, no detailed merit list disclosing the marks obtained by candidates or the categories under which they were selected was ever published. Instead, only an appointment order containing the names of 16 selected candidates was issued. In absence of knowledge of his marks, the petitioner bona fide presumed that he had not been successful in the examination on account of being less meritorious. Initially posted at Bilaspur, the petitioner was subsequently transferred to Raipur in the year 2021, where he came into contact with other candidates who had participated in the 2014 departmental examination. Through proceedings under the Right to Information Act, certain documents were pr