STATE OF CHHATTISGARH vs PRAVEEN SINGH — WA/464/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 15th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010122832026

Filing Number

WA/7068/2026

Filing Date

24-Mar-2026

Registration No

WA/464/2026

Registration Date

13-May-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

SELECTION, APPOINTMENT & RECRUITMENT INCLUDING EXAMINATION, INTERVIEW. ( 614 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

15-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

    Adv. A.G.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PRAVEEN SINGH

    Adv. ,Parth Shrivastava,Parth Shrivastava,ANAND SHUKLA 1123

  2. 2.Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission

    Adv. Anuroop Panda

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Jun-2026

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

    Case Summary: WA/464/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the State's writ appeal for filing 751 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The State sought condonation of delay, citing administrative procedures and departmental formalities. The court rejected this explanation, holding that government departments have a special obligation to perform duties with diligence and cannot claim delay as a matter of right. The court emphasized that "sufficient cause" requires reasonable explanation and bonafide effort, and that procedural red-tape is not acceptable under modern governance standards. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Jun-2026

    Fresh Matters

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

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WA/464/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WA/464/2026 The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the State's writ appeal for filing 751 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The State sought condonation of delay, citing administrative procedures and departmental formalities. The court rejected this explanation, holding that government departments have a special obligation to perform duties with diligence and cannot claim delay as a matter of right. The court emphasized that "sufficient cause" requires reasonable explanation and bonafide effort, and that procedural red-tape is not acceptable under modern governance standards. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case