1 2025:CGHC:6482 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3438 of 2018 Fabiyanus Tirkey S/o Late Stephan Tirkey, Aged About 38 Years Working As Train Graduate Teacher (English) And Posted At Eklavya Model Residential Higher Secondary School Chhotemudpar, Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Department Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3. Collector (Tribal Development Department ) Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For State/ Respondents : Mr. Vendant Shadangi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 05/02/2025 1) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to Eklavya Model Residential Sewa Bharti and Padonnati Niyam, 2007 issued under Article 275(1) of the Constitution of India, posts of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) were to be filled 75% via direct recruitment and the remaining 25% through promotion. He further submits that O/o Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.02.05 17:15:36 +0530 2 Collector, Tribal Development Branch, Raigarh has issued an advertisement on 31.03.2018 for filling up one post of Post Graduate Teacher (English) through direct recruitment which is in violation to the Rules, 2007. He prays to quash the entire advertisement. 2) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that there was only one post for PGT (English), therefore, same was being filled through direct recruitment. He further submits that recruitment process was completed in the year 2018 itself and appointment was also made on the said post, thus, instant petition has become infructuous. 3) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 4) According to Schedule 1 of the Rules, 2007, vacancies of Lecturers/ PGTs were to be filled 75% via direct recruitment and the remaining 25% through promotion. Evidently, in the advertisement dated 31.03.2018, there was only post of PGT (English) and same was being filled through direct recruitment and appointment on the said post has been made in the year 2018 itself and the selected candidate has also not been impleaded as a respondent, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed. 5) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya