2026:CGHC:10155 PAWAN NAFR KUMAR JHA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA WPS No. 10537 of 2025 • 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.)

... Petitioner 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 Conservator Of Forest, Raipur Circle, District Raipur (C.G.)

4. Divisional Forest Officer, Balodabazar, Forest Division Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.)

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. C.Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

ORDER ON BOARD

26/02/2026

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs.

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to conduct the walking test of the petitioner for the post of Driver LMV and further to consider the petitioner for the post of Driver LMV.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit and appropriate.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.05.2023, had submitted an application for his appointment on the post of Driver-Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) as also for the post of Driver-Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV). Selection on the said post is governed by the instructions issued by the department dated 26.07.2023. Petitioner was called for practical examination for both the posts ie., Driver (LMV) and Driver (HMV) on 09.04.2025. After completion of practical examination, petitioner has been placed at serial number 1 in the merit list. According to the instructions, petitioner was called for Walk Test on 16.06.2025 on the application of driver (HMV). The Walk Test of Driver (HMV) and Driver (LMV) was conducted on same day. Petitioner could not get a opportunity in the Walk Test for Driver (LMV). It is also submission of learned cousnel for petitioner that petitioner could not able to complete the Walk Test within the prescribed time as provided under the instruction for Driver (HMV) As petitioner has applied for both the tests ie., for Driver (LMV) and Driver (HMV) and therefore petitioner should have been given two opportunities for Walk Test, one for LMV and another for HMV and therefore respondents be directed to take Walk Test of petitioner for Driver (LMV) and thereafter to pass appropriate orders for appointment on the post of Driver (LMV).

3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that for filling up the posts for appointment of Driver (LMV) and Driver (HMV), the procedure/ guidelines have been formulated by the Additional Principle Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration Non-Gazetted), Chhattisgarh, Raipur, which is also approved by the State Government. According to the procedure and guidelines, the aspirants have to give practical examination test with regard to test of driver and knowledge of vehicle machinaries and thereafter the aspirants have to undergo physical efficiency test (Walk Test), in which the candidate/ aspirant has to complete 15 KMS of walk test within a period of 02 Hours for male candidates and for female candidates the Walk Test is of 8 KMS to be completed in 02 Hours. Walk Test of candidates applying for the post of Driver (LMV) and Driver (HMV) was mandatory and is to be completed within the stipulated time provided in the directives as also in the advertisement. Petitioner participated in the Walk Test on the date fixed, as pleaded in the writ petition and failed to complete the Walk Test of 15 KMS within the time frame. The Walk Test for both the tests ie., Driver (HMV)