1 2025:CGHC:40803 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1968 of 2021 1 - Ewan Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Dwarika Ram Sahu, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Sohpur, Post Nipani, Block Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction Chhattisgarh Raipur Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director, Department Of Education Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.08.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash Annexure P-1 and direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher (English) with all consequential benefit, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the advertisement dated 5.5.2019, the petitioner submitted an application form for the post of Teacher (English). He would contend that the required qualification for the post was graduation, D.Ed/ B.Ed, and TET. He would further contend that the petitioner has the requisite qualifications and, therefore, he was selected and called for document verification. He would also contend that, as the petitioner had passed the TET in 2017, his candidature was rejected vide Annexure-P/1 dated 3.3.2021 on the ground that he acquired the TET certificate before completing graduation. He would further submit that the petitioner completed his first graduation in 2012 and subsequently appeared for and qualified for the TET examination in 2017. Thereafter, upon obtaining permission from the University, he pursued a second graduation with English Literature as a subject. He would also submit that since the petitioner had already done his graduation in 2012, he was eligible to appear in the TET examination. In 2019, he completed his second graduation with English Literature, thereby fulfilling the subject-specific qualification. Hence, the rejection of his candidature, as communicated vide Annexure-P/1, is arbitrary and liable to be quashed. He would further argue that, in compliance with the interim order dated 8.6.2021, one post of Teacher English in the cadre has been kept vacant. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner passed TET examination prior to his graduation, 3 therefore, his candidature was rejected. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process for appointment to the post of Teacher (English). The documents would show that the petitioner cleared his graduation in 2012 and acquired a TET certificate in 2017. Thereafter, the petitioner sought permission from the concerned University to pursue graduation with English Literature, which was permitted vide order dated 9.1.2017. Subsequently, he completed his graduation with English Literature subject in 2019. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner passed the TET examination after graduation, and before another graduation with subject-specific to English Literature. Therefore, the reason assigned by respondent No.3 for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is erroneous and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent authorities for reconsideration. The entire exercise shall be completed by the competent authority within a period of 90 days in accordance with the law. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi