When systemic irregularities such as question paper leakage, favoritism, and procedural manipulation undermine the integrity of a departmental promotion examination, the entire selection process can be cancelled; no legitimate expectation arises from a tainted process.

CAV ORDER

1. Since an identical issue and common question of facts are involved in these writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

2. In pursuance of direction given by this Court, Mr. K.D. Kunjam, Special Secretary Food, Dr. Fariya Alam Siddiqui, Dy. Secretary School Education, Ms. Anshika Rishi Pandey, Dy. Secretary GAD, Mr. Rakesh Sahu, Dy. Secretary Skill Development, Mr. Ajay Tripathi, Dy. Secretary GAD members of the High-Level Investigation Committee and Mr. Harshwardhan Singh, Revenue Department appeared before this Court.

3. The petitioners have filed the present bunch of writ petitions seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to issue call letters/notices for initiation of Revenue Inspector Training pursuant to the departmental examination conducted vide memo dated 25.09.2023 and the selection list published on 23.10.2024.

4. The brief facts, as projected by the petitioners are that they are presently working as Patwaris at different places within the State of Chhattisgarh and each of them possesses more than five years’ experience on the said post. Respondent No. 3, vide memo dated 25.09.2023, invited applications for conducting a departmental examination for promotion from the post of Patwari to that of Revenue Inspector. As per the said memo, all Patwaris having more than five years’ experience were eligible to submit their applications in the prescribed format to their respective Tehsildars on or before 30.10.2023. In response thereto, approximately 2600 candidates submitted their applications. The departmental examination was conducted on 07.01.2024 and the result was thereafter uploaded on 29.02.2024, whereby 216 candidates were declared successful. Meanwhile, respondent No. 1, vide order dated 23.08.2024, constituted a High-Level Investigation Committee comprising five members as there was complaint regarding malpractice adopted in conducting examination, declaration of result. The Committee was required to submit its report within 15 days from the date of its constitution. Subsequently, respondent No. 3, on 05.09.2024, issued a communication to all the Collectors for verification of documents of the eligible Patwaris who had qualified the written examination. Upon completion of the document verification process, respondent No. 2 published the final list of eligible candidates for undergoing Revenue Inspector Training, wherein the names of the present petitioners were duly included. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite publication of the final selection list, the respondent authorities have, till date, not issued any call letters for commencement of Revenue Inspector Training, whereas as per Rule 10 of the Bhu Abhilekh Niyamawali , the training programme of all Revenue Inspectors is required to commence on 1st October of every year.

5. It has been further contended that earlier, some similarly situated selected candidates had approached this Court by filing WPS No. 7889/2024 (Girdhar Gopal Rathor and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh), which was disposed of vide order dated 14.01.2025 directing the respondent authorities to take a decision regarding commencement of training within a short time. However, despite the said direction, no decision has been taken by the respondent authorities till date though the petitioners have repeatedly approached the respondent authorities seeking initiation of their Revenue Inspector Training, but the matter is being unnecessarily delayed on the sole ground that the High-Level Investigation Committee has not yet submitted its report. Left with no other efficacious remedy, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions seeking appropriate directions to the respondents for initiation of Revenue Inspector Training and a direction be also issued to the respondent No. 4 to submit its report.

6. It has been further contended that the allegations of adoption of unfair means were levelled against seven Patwaris, out o