1 2025:CGHC:6341 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2908 of 2018 1 - Jhumman Lal Dewangan S/o Shri Tilak Ram Dewangan, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Semra, Post Semra, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Joint Director, Directorate Of Panchayat, 36 C III, Block- II, Second Floor, Indravati Bhavan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ashish Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the Order/Jetter Kramank / 2557/ Ji. Pan. / Shi. Pan. Pancha. /2015-16 Dhamtari, Dated 21/04/2017 Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- issued by the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, C.G. and direct the respondent authorities for issuing appointment order in the name of the petitioner for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I (Lecturer Panchayat) with effect from the date similarly situated candidates were appointed in the light of various orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court with in stipulated time frame. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Dhamtari, C.G. to take fresh decision in the letter dated 03/06/2016 issued by the Joint Director in accordance to the orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court on 01/07/2010, 06/12/2010 & 09/09/2011 in various writ petitions with in stipulated time frame. 10.3 That, any other writ, order, directions or relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the post of Lecturer Panchayat (Hindi) pursuant to advertisement dated 11.1.2008. He would contend that the last date for submission of application form was 30.3.2008. He would submit that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he has passed Post-Graduation with Third Division. He would further contend that the criteria for qualification was relaxed by the State Government vide circular dated 28.8.2008, and the Division Bench of this Court has passed an order in this regard. He would contend that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the said post, as the petitioner was in the merit list. 3 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that the last date for submission of application form was 30.3.2008, whereas the circular relaxing the eligibility criteria was issued by the State Government on 28.8.2008. They would submit that the eligibility criteria was relaxed subsequently, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of such relaxation. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. The last date for submission of the application was 30.3.2008, and the State Government issued a circular with regard to relaxation in eligibility criteria on 28.8.2008. In my opinion, the circular cannot be given effect retrospectively. Furthermore, the appointments have already been made, and the petitioner has not arrayed the selected candidates, therefore, no case is made out for interference. 6. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi