Chhattisgarh High Court (Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.; CAV order delivered 02.01.2026) dismisses a bunch of four writ petitions (WPS Nos. 1205, 1739, 1727 and 1206 of 2025) filed by Patwaris selected for promotion to Revenue Inspector — departmental examination notified 25.09.2023, held 07.01.2024, 216 candidates successful, final list published 23.10.2024 — who sought call letters for Revenue Inspector Training under Rule 10 of the Bhu Abhilekh Niyamawali. Training had been kept in abeyance after complaints of question-paper leakage prompted constitution of a five-member High-Level Investigation Committee (order dated 23.08.2024), whose report dated 29.11.2024 found procedural irregularities: mobile-number column in OMR sheets compromising secrecy, Bhuiya Software questions outside the twice-issued syllabus, absence of reservation, roll-number manipulation (240921/241921), serial allotment of roll numbers to brothers and close relatives across districts, doubling of questions from 50 to 100 within 90 minutes, and 90/90 scores held practically impossible, suggesting possible sale/leakage of the paper. The matter was referred to EOW/ACB, where Preliminary Enquiry No. 01/2025 was registered against eleven officers, with sanction under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 accorded (22.04.2025; letters dated 02.06.2025 and 06.06.2025). Applying the preponderance standard to the Committee's report, and relying on Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India, State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya and State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha, while distinguishing Anupal Singh, Shivnandan C.T., Sachin Kumar and Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu as inapplicable on the facts, the Court holds that the selection process is tainted with malpractice, favouritism and nepotism which vitiate the entire examination; legitimate expectation does not arise from a doubtful selection; and no direction can issue to send the petitioners for training. Nothing in the judgment is a finding of fact for the criminal proceedings, and the State is left at liberty to conduct a fresh examination preserving the sanctity and integrity of the examination.
