Dismissed

Ku. Divya Nareti v. State Of C.g. and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Jul 2024WPS/2490/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court clubbed numerous writ petitions challenging the selection process in the Sub-Inspector recruitment. The court reviewed Physical Efficiency Test scores and medical rejection grounds, dismissing all petitions where candidates failed to meet minimum qualifiers or lacked medical fitness.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ku. Divya Nareti Vs State Of C.g. and Ors. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 3578 of 2013

¶5

Vijay Kumar Soni S/o Shri P.L.Soni, Aged About 32 Years, R/ Shubham Vihar, Near Om Jone Colony, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur, Thana Civil Line, Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through, Home Department, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2. D.G.P. , State Of C.G. Police Headquarter, Civil Line, Police Thana Civil Line Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

3. Chairman, Sub Inspector Recrutment Committee, Add. Superintendent Of Polcie, Naxul Operation, .C.G. Police, S.T.F., Police Headquarter, Civil Line, Ps Civil Lines, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

4. Public Information Officer, Officer Of Superintendent Of Police, 32 Bangla, Bhilai, Police Thana Kotwali, Sector-6, Distt Durg, Cg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

5. Nitesh Singh Thakur, Roll No. 314406, Hindustan Printars, Near Saw Dharmshala, Juna Bilaspur, Thana City Kotwali, Dist Bilaspur, Cg Selected Candidate of Sub Inspector Exam, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

AND

¶14

WPS No. 1476 of 2013

¶15

Vinit Singh S/o Awadesh Singh Aged About 28 Years, C/o Ganga Ram Sukhija, Balram Takij Road, Verma Tower Gali No. 01, Jarhabhata, Ps Civil Line, Dist Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

2. Director General Of Police Police Headquarter, Civil Line, Police Station Civil Line Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶19

3. Chairman Sub Inspector Recruitment Committee, Additional Superintendent Of Police, Naxul Operation/ S.T.F, Police Headquarter, Police Station Civil Line Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶20

4. Public Information Officer, Office Of Superintendent Of Police, Police Station

¶21

-2-

¶22

Kotwali, Sector-6, Durg Rang, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶23

5. Nitesh Pandey, Aged About 25 Years, Roll No. 313319, Caste General, R/o Behind Hotel Ajit, Telipara, Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Pin-495442 ( Selected Candidate For Interview Examination), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶24

6. Parmanand Rathore, Aged About 27 Years, Roll No. 313237, R/o Rathore Bhawan, Devnandan Nagar, Phase Ii, Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Pin-495006 (Selected Candidate For Interview Examination), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶25

7. Ashish Kumar Kotriwar, Roll No. 313270, R/o Ward No. 44, Gupta Daily Needs Gali, Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Pin495006, (Selected Candidate In The Sub Inspector Examination), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

¶26

AND

¶27

WPS No. 882 of 2013

¶28

Rahul Dev Bhardwaj S/o Kailash Singh Bhardwaj Aged About 26 Years R/o Gram Dhurvakari, Ps Masturi, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

¶29

Versus

¶30

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Police Deptt, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Ps Rakhi, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶31

1. Director General Of Police State Of C.G., Police Headquarter, Police Line Raipur, Ps And District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

¶32

AND

¶33

WPS No. 1610 of 2013

¶34

Vivek Kumar Singh S/o Rampratap Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Masturi, Ps Masturi, Dist Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

¶35

Versus

¶36

1) State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Deptt, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶37

2) D.G.P. Police Head Quarter, Civil Lines, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶38

3) Chairman Sub Inspector Recruitment Committee, Add. Superintendent Of Polcie, Naxul Operation, .C.G. Police, S.T.F., Police Headquarter, Civil Line, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶39

4) Public Relations Officer Office Of Police Superintedent Of Police, 32 Banglow, Bhilai, Ps Kotwali, Sector 6, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶40

-3-

¶41

5) Santoshi Agrawal Roll Nol. 315388, R/o Gandhinagar, Ratanpur, Ps Ratanpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶42

6) Ashish Kumar Kotariwar, Roll No. 313270, R/o Ward No. 44, Gupta Delineeds Gali, Sarkanda, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶43

7) Nitesh Singh Thakur Roll No. 314406, Hindustan Printars, Near Saw Dharmshala, Thana City Kotwali, Dist Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶44

---- Respondents

¶45

AND

¶46

WPS No. 1576 of 2013

¶47

Sanjay Kumar Kaiwartya S/o Sufal Kumar Kaiwartya Aged About 29 Years R/o Azad Chauk Akaltara, Ps Akaltara, Dist Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶48

---- Petitioner

¶49

Versus

¶50

1) State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Police Deptt, Mantralaya,, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Ps Rakhi, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶51

2) Director General Of Police State Of C.G, Police Headquarter, Police Line Raipur, Ps And District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

¶52

AND

¶53

WPS No. 1562 of 2013

¶54

Meena Kumari D/o Jagesh Ram Thakur Aged About 29 Years R/o Vill Kotagaon, Tah And Thana Daundi, Distt Balod, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

¶55

Versus

¶56

1) State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Deptt Of Home Police, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶57

2) Director General Of Police State Of C.G, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶58

3) Savita Ekka C/o Secretary, Deptt Of Home Police, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶59

---- Respondents

¶60

AND

¶61

WPS No. 704 of 2013

¶62

Chandrahas Sahu S/o Tikaram Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Kumhari Post

¶63

-4-

¶64

Pauha Tahsil Patan District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

¶65

Versus

¶66

1) State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Home Department Mantralaya Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶67

2) Director General of Police(DGP), Police Headquarter, Civil Line, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶68

3) R.K. Vinj Chairman Recruitment Committee Deputy Director General of Police, Civil Line, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶69

4) Formal Respondent for Interview Examination, appointed all 1949 candidates

¶70

---- Respondents

¶71

AND

¶72

WPS No. 883 of 2013

¶73

Suryakant Shukla S/o Shatruhan Prasad Shukla Aged About 28 Years R/o Gram Sukulkari, Tah And Ps Masturi, Distt Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

¶74

Versus

¶75

1) State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Police Deptt, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Ps Rakhi, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶76

2) Director General Of Police State Of C.G. Police Headquarter Civil Lines Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

¶77

AND

¶78

WPS No. 1561 of 2013

¶79

Sujata Kumari D/o Pramod Kumar Aged About 29 Years R/o Ews 324, Vaishali Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, Thana Supela, Dist Durg, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶80

---- Petitioner

¶81

Versus

¶82

1) State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Deptt Of Home Police, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶83

2) Director General Of Police State Of C.G., Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶84

3) Chitreka Sahu C/o Secretary, Deptt Of Home Police, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

AND

-5-

WPS No. 513 of 2013

¶89

Anita Nag Parmar W/o Shailendra Singh Parma Aged About 29 Years R/o House 299, Ward No. 19, Paras Nagar, Raipur Ps Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ----Petitioner

¶90

Versus

¶91

1) State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶92

2) Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter Raipur, Tehsil & District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

¶93

AND

¶94

WPS No. 2490 of 2013

¶95

Ku. Divya Nareti D/o Shri Budhra Nareti Aged About 29 Years R/o Near Saha Dugdh Dairy, Santoshi Ward No. 27, Ps City Kotwali, Jagdalpur, Distt Bastar At Jagdalpur, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶96

---- Petitioner

¶97

Versus

¶98

1. State Of C.G, Through, Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh

¶99

2. D.G.P. Police Headquarter, Civil Line, Ps Civil Line, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶100

3. Chairman Sub Inspector Recrutment Committee, Add. Superintendent Of Polcie, Naxul Operation, .C.G. Police, S.T.F., Police Headquarter, Civil Line, Ps Civil Lines, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶101

4. Public Information Officer Office Of Add. Superintendent Of Polcie, Naxul Operation, .C.G. Police, S.T.F., Police Headquarter, Civil Line, Ps Civil Lines, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶102

5. Uma Thakur W/o Santosh Thakur Roll No. 511802, R/o Police Line, Kondagaon, Ps City Kotwali, Distt Kondagaon, Pin 494226 Selected Candidate Of Sub Inspector Exam, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh

¶103

6. Nitesh Singh Thakur Roll No. 314406, Hindustan Printars, Near Saw Dharmshala, Thana City Kotwali, Dist Bilaspur, Cg Selected Candidate Of Sub Inspector Exam, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

¶104

AND

¶105

WPS No. 518 of 2013

¶106

-6-

¶107

Surendra Khandekar S/o Santa Khandekar Aged About 32 Years Posted As Constable At P.S. Akaltara, Distt. Janjgir Champa C.G. R/o Gram Pendri, Tah. And P.S. Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. , Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

¶108

Versus

¶109

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Home Police Deptt. New Raipur Police Station Rakhi, Distt. Raipur C.G. , Chhattisgarh

¶110

2. Director General Of Police State Of Chhattisgar Raipur Distt Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶111

3. Superintendent Of Police Janjgir Champa Distt. Janjgir Champa C.G. , District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

¶112

AND

¶113

WPS No. 523 of 2013

¶114

Manbodh Kumar Sarthi S/o Tipu Prasad Sarthi Aged About 37 Years, R/o Vill Pota, Ward No. 17, Sai Niwas, Ps And Tah Malkharoda, Distt Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

¶115

Versus

¶116

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Thro Secretary, Home Poloce Deptt, New Raipur, Ps Rakhi, Distt Raipur,c G, Chhattisgarh.

¶117

2. Director General Of Police, State Of C.G. Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶118

3. Superintendent Of Police, Janjgir, Distt Janjgir Champa, Cg, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

¶119

AND

¶120

WPS No. 570 of 2013

¶121

Amit Kumar Khatkar S/o C.R. Khatkar Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Pamgarh, P.S. And Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa , Chhattisgarh

¶122

---- Petitioner

¶123

Versus

¶124

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Th. The Sec. Deptt Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya P.S. Mandir Hasaoud Raipur C.G. , Chhattisgarh.

¶125

2. Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Civil Lines, Raipur District Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶126

3. Deputy Director General Chairman Of The Selection Committee Police Head Quarter, Civil Lines Raipur C.G , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

-7-

---- Respondents

AND

WPS No. 656 of 2013

¶131

Bhuvneshwar Prasad Bharte S/o Bhajan Lal Bharte Aged About 35 Years, R/o Mandi Road Akaltar, Distt Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

¶132

Versus

¶133

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Home Police Department, New Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh.

¶134

2. Director General Of Police, State Of C.G., Raipur, Distt Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶135

3. Superintendent Of Police, Janjgir, Distt Janjgir Champa, Cg, District : JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

¶136

AND

¶137

WPS No. 682 of 2013

¶138

Aparna Ojha W/o Santosh Ojha Aged About 28 Years R/o H-45, Housing Colony, Pension Bada, P.S. City Kotwali, Raipur Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶139

---- Petitioner

¶140

Versus

¶141

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Departent Of Home Affirs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G. , Chhattisgarh

¶142

2. The Director General Of Police Police Head Qtr. Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶143

3. Additional Director Genera Of Police-Cum-Chairman Sub-Inspector Selection Committee Police Head Qutr. Raipur C.G. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

¶144

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶145

For respective Petitioners : Mr. Abhishek Pandey with Ms. Durga Mehar,
Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Mr. Narendra Mehar,
Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Mr.
Sushobhit Singh, & Mr. Vijay Chawlaholding
the brief of Ms. Naushina Ali, Advocates

¶146

For Petitioner in WPS No. 2490 of 2013: None, even in second round

¶147

For respective Respondents : Mr. B.D. Guru, Additional Advocate General,

¶148

-8-

¶149

Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate along with Mrs. Manisha Thakur, Additional Superintendent of Police, Kanker, & Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate

¶150

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶151

03.07.2024

¶152

1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the present bunch of writ petitions, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶153

1. The reason for filing these Writ Petitions is that the petitioners have not been given appropriate marks in Stage 2 (Physical Efficiency Test) of the SubInspector recruitment process, and thus they could not be selected.

¶154

1. Brief facts of the present case are as under:-

¶155

A. Respondent No. 2/Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, issued an advertisement for recruitment to the posts of Subedar, Sub Inspector, Sub Inspector (Special Branch), Sub Inspector (Radio), Sub Inspector (Finger Print), and Sub Inspector (Document) in the year 2011. The classification of the posts is as follows:-

¶156

S/ No.	Designation	U R	S C	ST	OBC (non- creamy layer)	Total	Pay Grade
1.	Subedar	25	08	11 0	07	50	9300-34800 (Grade Pay 4200)
2.	Sub Inspector	28 2	90	11 2	79	563	9300-34800 (Grade Pay 4200)
3.	Sub Inspector (Special Branch)	14	04	06	04	28	9300-34800 (Grade Pay 4200)

¶157

-9-

¶158

4. Platoon	45	15	18	12	90	5200-20200 (Grade
Commander						Pay 2900)
5. Sub Inspector	11	03	02	03	19	9300-34800 (Grade
(Radio)						Pay 4200)
6. Sub Inspector (Finger Print)	03	01	01	01	06	9300-34800 (Grade Pay 4200)
7. Sub Inspector	01	00	01	00	02	9300-34800 (Grade
(Document)						Pay 4200)
Total	38 1	12 1	15 0	106	758

¶159

B. Clause 5 of the Advertisement says that the recruitment process would be completed in two stages i.e. (A) Stage One, and (B) Stage Two. Stage One consisted of the Physical Measurement Test, Preliminary Written Test, and Mains Written Test whereas Stage Two consisted of the Physical Efficiency Test (Long Jump, High Jump, Shot Put, 100-meter race, and 1500-meter race) and the interview.

¶160

C. In Stage One, after the successful completion of physical measurement and verification of documents, the candidates were called for a Preliminary Written Test which consisted of 300 marks. The successful candidates in the Preliminary Written Test appeared in the main written test which consisted of 900 marks.

¶161

D. In Stage Two, the physical efficiency test consisted of 300 marks i.e. 60 marks for each event. The candidates had to secure a minimum of 30% marks i.e. 90

¶162

-10-

¶163

marks to qualify for the interview. The interview consisted of 100 marks. There was a provision of Bonus Marks i.e. 20 marks (10+10) for the candidates who possess specific degrees/diplomas in LLB, Forensic Science, Criminal Science, Physical Education, Electronics, Electricals, Telecom and Telecommunications.

¶164

E. Clause 8 says that on the basis of marks obtained in the Main Written Test, Physical Efficiency Test, Interview and Bonus Marks, a final merit list would be prepared, and collectively these contain 1000 marks.

¶165

F. Clause 9 says that for the appointment, the character verification of the selected candidates would be taken, and they also have to undergo medical tests. Further, the candidates must be medically fit; otherwise, their candidature will be rejected.

¶166

G. Clause 10 says that the selected candidates will be appointed on a probation period for 2 years and they will be sent for training.

¶167

H. The filling up of forms started on 19.12.2011 and the last date for submitting application forms was between 20.12.2011 to 20.01.2012. In the advertisement, the dates of the preliminary and main written tests were given as 13.05.2012 and 14.05.2012, respectively.

¶168

I. The petitioners along with other candidates submitted their application forms for the respective posts under the respective categories. They appeared in all stages of the examination. Finally, on 11.05.2013, the final result was declared.

¶169

J. The department published cut-off marks for the aforesaid exam. The categorywise cut-off marks for all the posts are as follows:-

¶170

S/	Designation	UR	SC	ST	OBC (non-
No.					creamy layer)
1.	Subedar	691.04	626.54	603.18	673.54
	Female	612.39	605.61	610.25	596.61

¶171

-11-

¶172

2.	Sub Inspector	607.39	536.54	531.96	588.03
	Female	556.74	494.18	510.03	535.25
	Ex-Army	462.74	-	-	-
3.	Sub Inspector (Special Branch)	649.39	542.03	600.39	630.12
	Female	621.61	-	510.45	-
4.	Platoon Commander	590.83	528.54	524.67	584.75

¶173

K. The arrangement of marks in the physical efficiency test is given as under:-

¶174

S/ No.	Long Jump (male) (three attempt)	Marks
1.	12 ft. (up to 3.66 meter)	00
2.	14 ft. ( 4.27 meter)	12
3.	16 ft. (4.88 meter)	24
4.	17 ft. (5.18 meter)	36
5.	18 ft. (5.49 meter)	48
6.	19 ft. (5.79 meter) or more	60

¶175

S/ No.	High Jump (male) (three attempt)	Marks
1.	4 ft. (up to 1.22 meter)	00
2.	4ft. 02 inch ( 1.27 meter)	12

¶176

-12-

¶177

3.	4ft. 04 inch ft. (1.32 meter)	24
4.	4 ft.06 inch (1.37 meter)	36
5.	4 ft. 08 inch (1.42 meter)	48
6.	4 ft.10 inch (1.47 meter) or more	60

¶178

S/ No.	Shot Put (three attempts) weight 16 pound:-	Marks
1.	Up to 4 meter	00
2.	05 meter	12
3.	06 meter	24
4.	07 meter	36
5.	08 meter	48
6.	09 meter or more	60
S/ No.	100 meter race	Marks
1.	12.5 second or less	60
2.	13.5 second	48

¶179

-13-

¶180

3.	14.5 second	36
4.	15.5 second	24
5.	16.5 second	12
6.	20 second or more	00
S/ No.	1500 meter race	Marks
1.	5 minute	60
2.	5 minute 10 second	48
3.	5 minute 20 second	36
4.	5 minute 30 second	24
5.	5 minute 40 second	12
6.	5 minute 50 second or more	00

¶181

L. For female candidates in the long jump, there were three attempts. If a candidate manages to jump up to 8 ft. (2.44 meters), there will be no marks. For 12 ft., 12 marks; for 13 ft., 36 marks; for 14 ft., 48 marks; and, for 15 ft. or more, 60 marks.

¶182

M. In the High Jump, up to 3 ft., there were no marks; for 3 ft. 2 inches, 12 marks; for 3 ft. 4 inches, 24 marks; for 3 ft. 6 inches, 36 marks; for 3 ft. 8 inches, 48

¶183

-14-

¶184

marks; and, for 3 ft. 10 inches or more, there were 60 marks.

¶185

N. In the shot put, if a candidate throws up to 4 meters, there were zero marks; for 5 meters, 12 marks; for 6 meters, 24 marks; for 7 meters 36 marks; for 8 meters, 48 marks; for 9 meters or more, there were 60 marks.

¶186

O. In the 100-meter race, for 14.5 seconds or less, 60 marks; for 15.5 seconds, 48 marks; for 16.5 seconds, 36 marks; for 17.5 seconds, 24 marks; for 18.5 seconds, 12 marks; and for 22 seconds or more, there were zero marks.

¶187

P. In the 1500-meter race, for 6 minutes, 60 marks; for 6.10 minutes, 48 marks; for 6.20 minutes, 36 marks; for 6.30 minutes, 24 marks; for 6.40 minutes, 12 marks; and for 6.50 minutes or more, there were zero marks.

¶188

Q. During the aforementioned recruitment process, the department used certain technical devices to avoid human error, i.e. biometric devices, OMR, radio frequency identification devices, and still cameras. Assistance from the District Medical Board was also taken.

¶189

WPS No. 1476 of 2013

¶190

1. Mr. Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had completed the 100-meter race in 14.05 seconds as he was using a stop-watch; therefore, he was entitled to get 36 marks. He further submitted that the petitioner in the 1500-meter race took 5 minutes 44 seconds to complete, and he was entitled to get 12 marks, however, he submitted that the marks awarded against the long jump, high jump, and shot put were perfect.

¶191

1. On the other hand, Mrs. Thakur, Additional Superintendent of Police appearing along with Mr. B. D. Guru, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner completed the 100-meter race in 14.8 seconds, therefore, he was awarded 24 marks and so far as the 1500-meter race is concerned, the

¶192

-15-

¶193

petitioner had completed 1500-meter race in 344 sec (5.73 min.), therefore, 0 mark was awarded to him.

¶194

1. It is the case of the petitioner that he completed the 1500-meter race in 344 sec. (5.73 min.), therefore, 12 marks would have been awarded to the petitioner, since the petitioner is a male candidate who completed the 1500-meter race in 5.73 minutes, therefore, he was rightly awarded 0 marks.

¶195

1. With respect to the 100-meter race, there is a difference of 0.3 sec, as the petitioner was using his own stopwatch, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the department recorded an incorrect finding.

¶196

1. Taking into consideration the fact that in open Court, original copies of OMR, footage of PET, scorecard etc., have been produced by Mrs. Thakur, which shows that the petitioner scored only 84 marks in the physical efficiency test and failed to score 90 marks (qualifying), therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed .

¶197

WPS No. 3578 of 2013

¶198

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had completed the 100-meter race in 12.10 seconds as per his stop-watch used at the time of the race, therefore he was entitled to get 60 marks. He further submitted that the petitioner in the 1500-meter race took 5 min. 17 sec. to complete and he was entitled to get 48 marks. He also submitted that he was awarded only 50 marks out of 100 in the interview.

¶199

1. On the other hand, Mrs. Thakur, Additional Superintendent of Police submitted that the petitioner had completed the 100-meter race in 12.97 seconds, therefore, he was awarded 48 marks and so far as the 1500-meter race is concerned, the petitioner had completed the 1500-meter race in 326 sec. (5.43

¶200

-16-

¶201

min.), therefore, 24 marks were awarded to him, and in this way, he secured 156 marks in PET and 50 marks in the interview. She further submitted the petitioner applied for the aforesaid post as an OBC candidate, who secured an aggregate – 551.75 marks which was less than the cut-off marks of OBC candidates i.e. 588.03.

¶202

1. It is the case of the petitioner that he completed the 1500-meter race in 5.17 min. and was entitled to get 60 marks but he had completed the 1500-meter race in 5.10 min therefore, rightly he was awarded 24 marks.

¶203

1. With respect to the 100-meter race, the petitioner took 12.97 seconds to finish the race; therefore, he was rightly given 48 marks.

¶204

1. In the interview, the marks are always awarded on the basis of the assessment of a candidate by the panel of experts who conduct the interview; therefore, the marks awarded by the panel of experts in an interview cannot be questioned.

¶205

1. Taking into consideration the fact the petitioner scored 156 marks in the physical efficiency test i.e. more than the qualifying marks (90 marks), but he was awarded only 50 marks in the interview, therefore, he failed to secure the cut-off marks i.e. 588.03 in the OBC category, thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed .

¶206

WPS No. 883 of 2013

¶207

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner qualified for the preliminary as well as main examination thereafter he was called for the Physical Efficiency Test. He further submitted that after completion of the physical test, the respondent authorities did not declare the marks of the petitioner and the marks of only three events were declared by the respondent authorities. He also submitted that the petitioner completed the following events

¶208

-17-

¶209

within the time-bound period:-

¶210

Tests	Time Period
Long Jump	3.90 meter
High Jump	1.27 meter
Shot Put	5.50 meter
100 meter race	15 second
1500 meter race	340 seconds

¶211

1. On the other hand, Ms. Manisha Thakur, Additional Superintendent of Police submitted that the petitioner had not completed every event in the time-bound period as stated by the petitioner. He secured the marks in the following

¶212

manner:-

¶213

Sr. No.	Events	Test completed in minutes/seco nds/meter	Marks
1	Long Jump	3.55 meter	0 marks
2	High Jump	1.27 meter	24 marks
3	Shot Put	5.50 meter	24 marks
4	100 m	14.92 sec	24 marks
5	1500 m	356 sec	0 marks
		Total marks	72 marks

¶214

1. It is the case of the petitioner that he completed the 1500-meter race in 356 sec. (5.56 min.) whereas 12 marks would have been awarded but as per the guidelines, the 1500-meter race was completed in 5.40 minutes and thus, rightly

¶215

-18-

¶216

he was awarded 0 marks.

¶217

1. With respect to the 100-meter race, there is a difference of 0.08 seconds, as the petitioner was using his own stopwatch, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the department recorded an incorrect timing.

¶218

1. Taking into consideration the fact that in open Court, original copies of OMR, footage of PET, and scorecard, have been produced by Mrs. Thakur, which shows that the petitioner scored only 72 marks in the physical efficiency test and failed to secure 90 marks (qualifying), therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed .

¶219

WPS No. 704 of 2013

¶220

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 13.04.2012, physical measurement was conducted by the respondents. In that test, the petitioner was not found a flat foot. He further submitted that after complete verification of the petitioner’s measurements, the respondents allowed the petitioner to appear in the Physical Efficiency Test. It is further contended that though the petitioner qualified for the Physical Efficiency Test, he was not called for the interview and his candidature was rejected on the ground that he was detected flat foot.

¶221

1. On the other hand, Mrs. Manisha Thakur, Additional Superintendent of Police submitted that the petitioner was examined by the Medical Board, Raipur and he was detected flat foot and found not fit for the post. She referred to Rule 8(3), which deals with Physical Qualification and it is clearly mentioned in Rule 8(3)(d) that candidates should not have “Knock-Knee” and “Flat Foot”, and therefore, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected, though, the petitioner had qualified physical efficiency test.

¶222

-19-

¶223

1. A copy of the certificate issued by the Medical Board placed by Mrs. Thakur is taken on record.

¶224

1. Admittedly, the petitioner applied for the examination and he cleared the Preliminary and Main Examinations which were conducted on 13.05.2012 and 24.06.2012, respectively. Thereafter, the physical proficiency test was conducted on 28.01.2013, but he was found a flat foot, and again on 05.02.2013, the test was conducted by the Medical Board of Government Hospital, Raipur where he was found a candidate with a flat foot.

¶225

1. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case at hand and the submissions advanced by Mrs. Thakur that the petitioner was not found medically fit by the Medical Board, Raipur, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed on this ground alone.

¶226

WPS No. 1562 of 2013

¶227

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner appeared in the Physical Efficiency Test and after its completion, the respondent department informed the petitioner of her score but there was some difference in timing. He also submitted that the marks scored in the 100-meter race were 40, but the authority awarded only 12 marks. He further argued that in the 1500-meter race, she got zero marks, which is not correct. It is also argued that the petitioner asked the respondent authorities to provide video footage of the physical test under the Right to Information Act, but till date, no information has been supplied to her. He also stated that the select list is illegal and arbitrary. Thus, he prayed to quash the selection list dated 11.05.2013.

¶228

-20-

¶229

1. On the other hand, Mrs. Manisha Thakur, Additional Superintendent of Police would refer to Rule 6(8)(iv), which says that only those candidates shall be interviewed who have obtained a minimum of 30% of marks in the Physical Proficiency Test. She further submitted that the minimum marks to qualify physical efficiency test was 90 out of 300, but the petitioner scored only 72 marks. She also submitted that in the Physical Proficiency test the petitioner secured the following marks:-

¶230

Sr. No.	Proficiency Tests	Test completed in Seconds/min utes/meter	Marks Obtained
1	Long Jump	2.46 m	12 marks
2	High Jump	0.97 m	24 marks
3	Shot Put	5.70 m	24 marks
4	100 M Race	18.44 sec	12 marks
5	1500 M Race	475 sec	0 marks

¶231

Total 72 marks

¶232

1. It is the case of the petitioner that he completed the 1500-meter race in 475 sec. (7.91 minutes) and she was entitled to get 12 marks but as per norms she had completed the 1500-meter race in 475 seconds and was rightly awarded 0 marks.

¶233

1. With respect to the 100-meter race, it cannot be presumed that the department recorded an incorrect timing.

¶234

1. Taking into consideration the fact that in open Court, original copies of OMR, footage of PET and scorecard have been produced by Mrs. Thakur, which shows that the petitioner scored only 72 marks in the physical efficiency test and

¶235

-21-

¶236

failed to secure 90 marks (qualifying), thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed .

¶237

WPS No. 1576 of 2013

¶238

1. Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner qualified for written examination and physical efficiency test and thereafter, he was called for the interview. He further submitted that there was a four-member committee in a panel, but one member was not present at the time of the interview. He also submitted that out of four, one left the chamber during the course of the interview and each member of that panel had to award 25 marks but no marks were awarded by the outgoing member, which affected the merit of the petitioner.

¶239

1. On the other hand, Mrs. Manisha Thakur, Additional Superintendent of Police submitted that the petitioner could not secure cut-off marks for any post. She referred to the cut-off marks for the OBC category, and the same is mentioned in the present petition in para 3(J). Mrs. Thakur further submitted that the petitioner secured a total of 507.04 marks, thus, the petitioner could not be selected for any post.

¶240

1. Considering the submissions made by Mr. Gupta, if 25 marks are also added to 507.04 marks, it would become 532.04, even below the cut-off marks for the OBC category for all cadres.

¶241

1. Taking into consideration the fact that in open Court, original copies of OMR, footage of PET, and scorecard have been produced by Mrs. Thakur, which shows that the petitioner scored a total of 507.04 marks and failed to secure the

¶242

-22-

¶243

cut-off marks, I do not find any good ground to interfere. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed .

¶244

WPS No. 1610 of 2013

¶245

1. Mr. Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner qualified for written examination and physical efficiency test and thereafter, he was called for the interview. He further submitted that though he appeared in the interview, he was not awarded appropriate marks. It is also submitted that the petitioner secured 580.83 marks in the open category, but he was not declared selected.

¶246

1. On the other hand, Mrs. Manisha Thakur, Additional Superintendent of Police submitted that the petitioner could not secure the cut-off marks for any post. She referred to the cut-off marks for the open category, and the same is mentioned in the present petition in para 3(J). Mrs. Thakur further submitted that the petitioner secured a total of 580.83 marks, thus, he could not be selected against any post.

¶247

1. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner could not secure the required marks to qualify for the examination and to get a position in the merit list, I do not find any good ground to entertain the instant petition. Accordingly, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶248

WPS No. 882 of 2013

¶249

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner qualified for the preliminary as well as main examination, thereafter he was called for the Physical Efficiency Test. He further submitted that after completion of the

¶250

-23-

¶251

physical test, the respondent authorities did not declare the marks of the petitioner and the marks of only three events were declared by the respondent authorities whereas marks of the 1500-meter race and 100-meter race were not declared. He also submitted that the petitioner completed the following events within the time-bound period:-

¶252

Tests	Completed in (meter/second)
Long Jump	3.71 meter
High Jump	1.22 meter
Shot Put	6.75 meter
100 meter race	14.30 second
1500 meter race	5 minute 47 seconds

¶253

On the other hand, Mrs. Manisha Thakur, Additional Superintendent of Police submitted that based on the record, the petitioner completed the 1500-meter race in 363 seconds and in order to get at least 12 marks, a candidate should have completed the 1500-meter race in 340 seconds. She further submitted that the 100-meter race was completed by the petitioner in 14.23 seconds and 36 marks were awarded. She also submitted that the petitioner could not complete every event in a time-bound period. She stated that the petitioner got the following marks:-

¶254

Sr. No.	Events	Completed in (meter/seconds)	Marks
1	Long Jump	3.55 meter	0 marks
2	High Jump	1.22 meter	12 marks
3	Shot Put	6.30 meter	36marks

¶255

-24-

¶256

4	100 m	14.23 sec	36 marks
5	1500 m	363 sec	0 marks
		Total marks	84 marks

¶257

It is the case of the petitioner that he completed the 1500-meter race in 363 sec.

¶258

(6.05 min.) and was entitled to get 12 marks but he completed the 1500-meter race in 5.40 min. and thus, rightly he was awarded 0 marks.

¶259

1. In the event of the High Jump, the petitioner could jump 1.22 meters which was below 1.27 meters therefore rightly he was awarded 0 marks.

¶260

1. Taking into consideration the fact that in open Court, original copies of OMR, footage of PET, and scorecard have been produced by Mrs. Thakur, which shows that the petitioner scored only 84 marks in the physical efficiency test and failed to secure 90 marks (qualifying), I do not find any good ground to interfere. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed .

¶261

WPS No. 1561 of 2013

¶262

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner – Sujata Kumari appeared in the Physical Efficiency Test and completed the 1500-meter race within the prescribed period but she was awarded zero marks, which is not correct. It is further contended that the petitioner asked the respondent authorities to provide video footage of the physical test under the Right to Information Act, but till date, no information has been supplied to her. He also contended that the select list is illegal and arbitrary. Thus, he prayed to quash the select list dated 11.05.2013.

¶263

1. Mrs. Manisha Thakur, Addl. Superintendent of Police, based on the record of

¶264

-25-

¶265

recruitment submitted that the qualifying marks for physical aptitude was 90 whereas, the petitioner secured 84 marks. She further submitted that the total marks for the physical ability test were 300 and out of 300 marks, the qualifying marks were 90 i.e. 30%. She referred to a chart annexed to the return where the name of the petitioner namely, Sujata Kumari appears at serial No.1083. In physical ability, she secured a total of 84 marks which is less than 90 marks, therefore, her name was not considered. The marks awarded to the petitioner are as under:-

¶266

S.No.	Discipline	Distance	Qualifying Marks	Obtained Mark
1	Long Jump	2.79 m	60	12
2	High Jump	0.97 m	60	24
3	Shot Put	5.70 m	60	24
4	100 Meter Race	17.06 sec	60	24
5	1500 Meter Race	530 sec	60	0
			Total	84

¶267

Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground

¶268

to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed .

¶269

WPS No. 513 of 2013

¶270

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner – Anita Nag Parmar appeared in the Physical Efficiency Test and her performance was up to mark. He also submitted that in the 100-meter race and 1500-meter race, she

¶271

-26-

¶272

got zero marks, which is not correct. It is further contended that the petitioner asked the respondent authorities to provide video footage of the physical test under the Right to Information Act, but till date, no information has been supplied to her. He also stated that the select list is illegal and arbitrary. Thus, he prayed to quash the select list dated 11.05.2013.

¶273

Mrs. Manisha Thakur, Addl. Superintendent of Police, based on the record of recruitment, submitted that the qualifying marks for physical aptitude were 90 whereas, the petitioner secured 60 marks. She further submitted that the total marks for the physical ability test were 300 and out of 300 marks, the qualifying mark was 90 i.e. 30%. In physical ability petitioner secured a total of 60 marks which is less than 90 marks, therefore, her name was not considered for the next round. The marks awarded to the petitioner are as under:-

¶274

S.No.	Discipline	Distance	Qualifying Marks	Obtained Marks
1.	Long Jump	2.65 m	60	12
2.	High Jump	0.97 m	60	24
3.	Shot Put	5.70 m	60	24
4.	100 Meter Race	19.77 sec	60	0
5.	1500 Meter Race	692 sec	60	0
			Total	60

¶275

1. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed .

¶276

-27-

¶277

WPS No. 2490 of 2013

¶278

1. Facts of the present case are that the respondent authorities issued an advertisement on 15.12.2011 for filling the vacant posts of Subedar, SubInspector (Special Branch), Platoon Commander, Sub-Inspector (Radio), SubInspector (Finger Print), Sub-Inspector (Questioned document) etc. as per the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2006. The procedure for selection was a five-stage recruitment process: (i) measurement of the physical standard; (ii) written examination; (iii) main examination; (iv) physical efficiency test; (v) interview.

¶279

1. Grievance of the petitioner is that she secured good marks in the written test, physical efficiency test and interview but she could not find her place in the merit list; the petitioner belongs to the ‘Scheduled Tribe’ category and being a ‘female’ candidate, she ought to have been selected.

¶280

1. Mrs. Manisha Thakur, Addl. Superintendent of Police, Kanker present before this Court submitted that the petitioner secured a total of 499.75 marks in the examination. She further submitted that the following is the list of cut-off marks of the posts against which the petitioner appeared in the examination pertaining

¶281

to the ST-Female category :-

¶282

S. No.	Post	Cut-off Marks
1	Subedar	610.25
2	Sub-Inspector (Special Branch)	510.45
3	Sub-Inspector (Police)	510.03

¶283

1. Considering the cut-off marks of various posts and the fact that the petitioner scored 499.75 marks, her candidature was not considered.

¶284

1. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground

¶285

-28-

¶286

to entertain this petition. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶287

WPS No 518 of 2013

¶288

1. Mrs. Manisha Thakur, Additional Superintendent of Police, Kanker appearing along with Mr. Guru, Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner was a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste category and in the Long Jump he jumped 3.35 meters and was awarded 00 marks; in High Jump, he jumped 1.27 meters and was given 24 marks; in Shot Put he threw 7.10 meters and was given 48 marks; the 100-meter Race, he completed it in 16.27 seconds and obtained 12 marks; in the 1500-meter race, he did not participate.

¶289

1. The petitioner secured 84 marks out of 90 and thus he was not found eligible for the next round and his candidature was not considered by the authorities.

¶290

1. These above facts were brought to the knowledge of this Court by Mrs. Manisha Thakur, Addl. SP, Kanker based on the records.

¶291

1. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the authorities. Accordingly, this petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶292

WPS No 523 of 2013

¶293

1. Mrs. Manisha Thakur, Additional Superintendent of Police, Kanker submitted that the petitioner was a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste category and he secured the following marks in PET:-

¶294

Long Jump	:	3.40 metre	: 00 marks
High Jump	:	1.22 metre	: 12 marks
Shot Put	:	7.00 metre	: 36 marks

¶295

	-29-
100 metre Race	:	14.34 seconds	: 36 marks
1500 metre Race	:	402 seconds	: 00 marks

¶296

1. The petitioner secured 84 marks out of minimum qualifying 90 marks and thus he was not found eligible for the next round and his candidature was not considered by the authorities.

¶297

1. These above facts were brought to the knowledge of this Court by Mrs. Manisha Thakur, Addl. SP, Kanker on the basis of the record.

¶298

1. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the authorities. Accordingly, this petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶299

WPS No 570 of 2013

¶300

1. Mrs. Manisha Thakur, Additional Superintendent of Police, Kanker submitted that the petitioner was a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, and in the Physical Proficiency Test, he secured the following marks:-

¶301

Long Jump :	3.37 meter	:	00marks
High Jump :	Not participated	:	--
Shot Put :	739 cm	:	48marks
100 meter Race :	15.54 seconds	:	12marks
1500 meter Race:	394 seconds	:	00marks

¶302

1. The petitioner secured 60 marks out of 90 and thus he was not found eligible for the next round and his candidature was not considered by the authorities.

¶303

1. These above facts were brought to the knowledge of this Court by Mrs. Manisha Thakur, Addl. SP, Kanker on the basis of the record.

¶304

-30-

¶305

1. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the authorities. Accordingly, this petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶306

WPS No 656 of 2013

¶307

1. Mrs. Manisha Thakur, Additional Superintendent of Police, Kanker submitted that the petitioner was a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. In the Physical Proficiency Test, there are 05 stages in which he secured the following marks:-

¶308

Long Jump	:	353 cm	: 00 marks
High Jump	:	Not participated	: --
Shot Put	:	605 cm	: 36 marks
100 meter Race	:	14.83 seconds	: 24 marks
1500 meter Race	:	Not participated	: 00 marks.

¶309

1. The petitioner secured 60 marks out of 90 and thus he was not found eligible for the next round and his candidature was not considered by the authorities.

¶310

1. The above facts were brought to the knowledge of this Court by Mrs. Manisha Thakur, Addl. SP, Kanker, on the basis of the record.

¶311

1. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the authorities. Accordingly, this petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶312

WPS No 682 of 2013

¶313

1. Mrs. Manisha Thakur, Additional Superintendent of Police, Kanker submitted that the petitioner was a female candidate belonging to the open category. In

¶314

-31-

¶315

the Physical Proficiency Test, there are 05 stages under which she secured the following marks:-

¶316

Long Jump :	273 cm	: 12 marks
High Jump :	91 cm	: 12 marks
Shot Put :	600 cm	: 24 marks
100 meter Race :	18.17 sec.	: 12 marks
1500 meter Race:	611 sec	: 00 marks

¶317

1. The petitioner secured 60 marks out of 90 and thus she was not found eligible for the next round and her candidature was not considered by the authorities.

¶318

1. The above facts were brought to the knowledge of this Court by Mrs. Manisha Thakur, Addl. SP, Kanker, on the basis of the record.

¶319

1. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the authorities. Accordingly, this petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶320

1. As a result, these petitions are hereby dismissed . No costs.

¶321

Sd/-

¶322

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶323

Vatti/Nimi/Nadim/Ajinkya/Siddhant

Ku. Divya Nareti v. State Of C.g. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ku. Divya Nareti v. State Of C.g. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Shriram Khare and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Lomesh Yadav Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Deepak Kumar Markam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Laxminath Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sona Ram Nag Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.