1 2025:CGHC:44279 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2504 of 2022 * - Vikram Kumar Sahu S/o Arjun Lal Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Barbaspur, Post Bhukel, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Barun Kumar Chakrabarty, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned rejection order Annexure P-1 and further direction may be issued to consider the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher (Maths) (T Cadre) in Bilaspur Division, in the interest of justice. 10.(ii)Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to Advertisement issued by the Joint Director/respondent No. 2 dated 04.04.2022 for post of Lecturer, Teachers and Assistant Teachers, the petitioner submitted his application form for the post of Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.09.02 17:17:16 +0530 2 Teacher (Maths). He would contend that the petitioner belongs to Other Backward Class category (OBC) and he had submitted his application mentioning himself as member of OBC, but he was treated as member of General category and benefit of age relaxation was not extended, as at the time of submission of application form, the age of the petitioner was 40 years and 11 months. He would contend that the petitioner is entitled to get relaxation in the age according the Circular issued by the State Government from time to time. He would further contend that the petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/respondents would submit that the petitioner did not submit proper document with regard to his social status and failed to mention OBC category in the application form, therefore, he was treated as candidate of General category and maximum permissible age was 35 years, whereas the age of the petitioner at the relevant time was 40 years and 11 months, therefore, his name was not considered 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 5. Considering the facts that the petitioner had not annexed copy of social status certificate alongwith application form and further as stated in the return, relevant document with regard to social status certificate was not annexed alongwith application form, therefore, he was treated as candidate of General category, thus, no case is made out for interference. 6. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti