1 2025:CGHC:25655 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2440 of 2019 1 – Smt. Bharti Dewangan W/o Chandrabhan Dewangan Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Motipur, Post Office Ramatola Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Purushottam Kumar Chandrawanshi S/o Late Lakhan Lal Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Motipur, Post Office Ramatola Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Phoolchand Sahu S/o Shri Kanwal Lal Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Village And Post Ramatola, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Post And Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission Through Mission Director, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. .. Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 3/State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 19.6.2025 1. The petitioners have preferred instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s):- BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.06.20 17:36:37 +0530 2 i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. ii. To kindly quash the orders date 19/09/2018 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent no.4. iii. To kindly direct the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) as per order dated 08/12/2015 passed in the case of similarly situated persons. iv. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. 2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that, the petitioners were appointed by local administration i.e. Janbhagidari Samiti of respective schools and they worked as Janbhagidari Shikshak from 2002-03 to 2005-06. They are seeking their appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) as vide Order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-P/8), Alternative teachers have been ordered to be appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the year 2005, the State Government decided to unify the teachers in the State, who were working with different nomenclature such as ‘Guruji’, ‘Samvida Shala Shikshak’, ‘Anudeshak’, ‘Vaikalpik Shikshak’ etc. The State Government decided to consolidate the entire teachers under the common nomenclature of ‘Shikshakarmi Grade-III’. In this regard several orders were issued and teachers of the entire State were brought under the common scheme of Shikshakarmi, governed with specific set of service rules, i.e. ‘The Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997’. He would further submit that in the matter of Chhattisgarh Rajya Panchayat Vaikalpik Shikshak Sangh & Ors. vs. The 3 State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (WP No.1731/2005) and other connected matters, in pursuance of submission made on behalf of the State Government that the matter is under consideration, vide Order dated 11.8.2010, the Court disposed aforesaid cases with direction to expedite the matter and decide the same at the earliest. He would further submit that vide Order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-P/8), various Alternative teachers were appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) on the basis of direction issued by this Court in WPS No.884/2007 vide Order dated 12.3.2014 (Annexure-P/7). Case of the petitioners is also similar to the Alternative teachers appointed vide Annexure-P/8, therefore, the petitioners may also be appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) in the light of Order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-P/8) issued by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG). 4. Respondent No.4, who is the main contesting party in this case, has filed its reply. Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, referring to its reply would submit that, the petitioners worked at Janbhagidari school as Janbhagidari teachers only four years and their employment was discontinued after 2005-06. Thus, they were not posted as Janbhagidari teacher since 2006. He would further submit that vide Order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-P/8), the persons named therein were appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) under the Chhattisgarh Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of services) Rules, 2012 (for short ‘the Rules 2012’) as they had passed Higher Secondary examination and they were also continuously working on the post of Alternative teachers under the Employment Guarantee scheme. Whereas, employment of the petitioners were discontinued after 2006 and moreover, they have worked for only 04 years. Further, the petitioners were also not 4 having requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher as per Rules 2012, therefore, their representations were rejected. He would further submit that vide Gazette Notification dated 06.10.2006, though additional mark was directed to be given for experience, to those teachers who were worked under various schemes like Janbhagidari Schools, DPEP, Alternative Schools, Non-formal education center, cent-percent aided State Govt. and in village schools recognised by the Janpad Panchayat & Zila Panchayat, but the petitioners did not participate in any recruitment process. Since no pleading in this regard has been made by them in this petition, therefore, they are not entitled to get appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), hence, the petition is liable to be rejected. 5. The State has also filed its reply. Learned counsel for the State referring to its reply, would support the contention made by learned counsel for respondent No.4. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The petitioners have filed their experience certificate issued by the Officer of the Education Department and Janbhagidari Samiti, which shows that they worked as Janbhagidari Shikshak for only 04 years i.e. from 2002- 03 to 2005-06. Nothing has been brought by the petitioners on record to show that similarly situated teachers were appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher by the respondent authorities. Vide Gazette Notification dated 06.10.2006, additional mark for experience was granted to those teachers, who were worked as teachers in Janbhagidari Schools, EPEP, Alternative Schools, Non-formal education center, cent-percent aided State Govt. etc. On the basis of this notification alone, the petitioners cannot be considered entitled to appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher, particularly when 5 they were not having requisite qualification and further they did not participate in any recruitment process for appointment on the post of Assistant teacher. 8. Vide Order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-P/8), those Alternative teachers, who had passed Higher Secondary Examination, were appointed on the post of Assistant teachers under the Rule 2012. But, since the employment of the petitioners were discontinued from 2006, they were not having requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher, therefore, only because they worked for 04 years on post of Janbhagidari Teacher, they cannot be equated with teachers who were appointed vide Order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-P/8). 9. Nothing has been brought on record by the petitioners, which entitle them to grant relief sought for in the instant petition. Thus, taking into consideration of the overall facts and circumstance of the case, this Court does not find any merit in the case. Hence, the petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chadnravanshi) Judge Bini