DIVAKAR SINGH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G., ,PALAK DWIVEDI — WA/287/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010018442026

Filing Number

WA/992/2026

Filing Date

12-Jan-2026

Registration No

WA/287/2026

Registration Date

19-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Coram

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

SERVICE MATTERS ( 6 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS AND MIXED BAG ONES ( 630 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 17-May-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DIVAKAR SINGH

    Adv. Abhyuday Singh,K. Rohan,K. Rohan, ,K. Rohan

  2. 2.Dhananjay Singh

  3. 3.Riya Das

  4. 4.Ajay Bara

  5. 5.Shilpa Yadav

  6. 6.Sweta Jendre

  7. 7.Rakesh Kumar Chandrakar

  8. 8.Kanchan Dadsena

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G., ,PALAK DWIVEDI

  2. 2.Commissioner Land Records

  3. 3.Director, Land Records

  4. 4.Shri K.D. Kunjam

  5. 5.Manjeet Kumar Yadav

    Adv. ROHITASHVA SINGH

  6. 6.Amit Sinha

  7. 7.Md. Razwan Ali

  8. 8.Prakash Kumar Singh

  9. 9.Sarita Keshri

  10. 10.Renuka Kashyap

  11. 11.Pooja Mishra

  12. 12.Arun Kumar Jaiswal

  13. 13.Teekan Kumar Rajwade

  14. 14.Samai Pratap Singh

  15. 15.Vinod Singh

  16. 16.Ashish Kumar Sahu

  17. 17.Nirmal Kumar Tiwari

  18. 18.Manish Kumar Shrivastav

  19. 19.Saurabh Goswami

  20. 20.Rajeev Lochan Singh

  21. 21.Sunil Kumar Paikra

  22. 22.Amitesh Swarnkar

  23. 23.Pratap Ram Painkra

  24. 24.Raja Ram Ravi

  25. 25.Ramchandra

  26. 26.Ramdev Ram

  27. 27.Asha Bhagat

  28. 28.Anjali Gupta

  29. 29.Prakash Sahu

  30. 30.Surya Kant Nishad

  31. 31.Bhaskar Sahu

  32. 32.Rakesh Kumar Tamrakar

  33. 33.Vinita

  34. 34.Rishikesh Mishra

  35. 35.Satyawan Pathak

  36. 36.Yogendra Kumar Sharma

  37. 37.Jitendra Kumar Dhruw

  38. 38.Bhuwan Singh Dhruw

  39. 39.Manish Kumar Varma

  40. 40.Vibhav Singh

  41. 41.Bindu Sanadya

  42. 42.Ajit Kumar Nirmalkar

  43. 43.Rahul Kumar Sahu

  44. 44.Sunil Kumar Karn

  45. 45.Shubham Sharma

  46. 46.Pradeep Dewangan

  47. 47.Bhupendra Kumar Kande

  48. 48.Vibha Mishra Tiwari

  49. 49.Shweta Sharma

  50. 50.Safeer Ahmad Khan

  51. 51.Mamta Dubey

  52. 52.Santram Gote

  53. 53.Shakuntala Vaishnav

  54. 54.Vikesh Kumar Soni

  55. 55.Anil Kumar Sahu

  56. 56.Ray Singh

  57. 57.Suman Chandravanshi

  58. 58.Jineshwari Sahu

  59. 59.Vikas Kumar Vasnik

  60. 60.Kanni Lal Beck

  61. 61.Manoj Kumar

  62. 62.Ankita Tirkey

  63. 63.Santosh Kumar Ekka

  64. 64.Anil Kumar Xalxo

  65. 65.Jeet Lal Singh

  66. 66.Surya Prakash Joshi

  67. 67.Shripal Beck

  68. 68.Anita Kujur

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice,Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar AgrawalView PDF

    Summary The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an intra-court appeal challenging a departmental examination for Patwari to Revenue Inspector promotion conducted in 2023-2024, finding the selection process was tainted with favoritism and nepotism due to procedural irregularities including mobile numbers on OMR sheets, increased question count without time adjustment, and consecutive roll numbers assigned to 22 relatives. The court upheld the original dismissal of the writ petition while granting liberty to conduct a fresh examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

  4. 12-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WA/287/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an intra-court appeal challenging a departmental examination for Patwari to Revenue Inspector promotion conducted in 2023-2024, finding the selection process was tainted with favoritism and nepotism due to procedural irregularities including mobile numbers on OMR sheets, increased question count without time adjustment, and consecutive roll numbers assigned to 22 relatives. The court upheld the original dismissal of the writ petition while granting liberty to conduct a fresh examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case