1 2025:CGHC:41660 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2882 of 2022  Omprakash S/o Bahadur Aged About 35 Years R/o Dhaniya Khurd, Block S.Lohara, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director Public Instructions, Sanchalnalaya, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Divisional Joint Director Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 18-08-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- 10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to declare the petitioner eligible for the post of Teacher (Mathematics) and further set-aside the ineligibility order dated 15.03.2022 (Annexure P-1). 10.2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to consider the petitioner for the post of Teacher (Mathematics). Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.08.19 16:49:09 +0530 2 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an advertisement was issued by respondent No. 2 in the year 2019 for various posts under the respondent department, including the post of Teacher (Mathematics); the petitioner participated in the written examination conducted by CG-VYAPAM and secured a position in the merit list. He further submits that the requirement for the post of Teacher was a Graduation and a TET certificate. He contends that though the petitioner was meritorious, he was not considered by the respondent authorities on the ground that he passed the TET examination prior to graduation, vide order dated 15.03.2022. He further contends that the petitioner completed two years diploma [D.L.Ed.] in the year 2013, and he was in the final year examination of graduation in the year 2014; thus, the petitioner was eligible to appear in the TET examination as per guidelines issued by the examination conducting body, i.e., CG- VYAPAM. He argues that the reason assigned by respondent No. 3 in its order dated 15.03.2022 is erroneous. He prays to allow this petition. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner acquired the qualification of TET before graduation; therefore, he was not eligible for appointment to the post of Teacher. He further submits that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5) The guidelines issued by the examination conducting body, i.e., CG- VYAPAM, for appearing in the TET examination have been placed on 3 record. The requirement to appear in the TET examination for appointment of a Teacher to teach the students of Classes VI to VIII is as under:- (क) स्नातक और प्रार भिक शि क्षा में व्दिवर्षीय डिप्लोमें ( चाहे जि!स डिकस# नामें स !ना !त हे) क अं डितमें वर्षी% में सम्मि'मेंशिलोत हेना वलो अंथव उत्ती#र्ण%। 6) In the present case, the petitioner completed two year diploma [D.L.Ed.] in the year 2013 and graduation in the year 2014, whereas he passed TET examination in year 2014, thus he was eligible to appear in the TET examination in year 2014, therefore the reason assigned by respondent No. 3 in its order dated 15.03.2022 appears to be erroneous and is hereby set-aside. 7) Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Teacher (Mathematics) in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8) In view of the above, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya