2025:CGHC:13195 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4400 of 2018 1 - Gopi Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ramhu Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bisatola , Block S. Lohara , District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer , Zila Panchayat Kabirdham, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3 - Santosh Kumar Working As Lecturer ( Panchayat ) And Posted At Government High School Danikakhurd , Block Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabircham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19.03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the appointment order of the respondent no. 3 REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- dated 07.12.2017 and petitioner may be considered for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Panchayat), in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash letter dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Mr. Dewangan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, respondent No.3 and other eligible candidates participated in the recruitment of Lecturer (Panchayat) pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent No. 2 dated 24.07.2017. He would further submit that the last date for the submission of the application form was 10.08.2017. He would contend that the required qualification for the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) was Post-Graduation in a particular subject along with B.Ed. He would further contend that respondent No. 3 passed B.Ed. examination in the year 2017 but the mark-sheet was issued on 03.08.2017, thus on the cut-off date i.e. the date of publication of the advertisement, respondent No. 3 did not have the requisite qualification. He would refer to the circular issued by the Directorate of Panchayat, Chhattisgarh dated 20.11.2017, according to which, the candidates who acquired B.Ed qualification after the cut-off date, their names would be considered after exhausting the list from non-B.Ed. candidates. He would also submit that respondent No. 3 was appointed contrary to the rules and circulars issued by the State. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the B.Ed. mark- sheet was issued to respondent No.3 on 03.08.2017. He would further submit that the petitioner in the petition has admitted the fact that the last date for the submission of the application form was 10.08.2017 and prior to the submission of the application form, respondent No. 3 had acquired the required qualification. 4. Mr. Shrivastava, appearing for the State and Ms. Nagar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 would support the contention made by Mr. Biswas. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. The mark-sheet of B.Ed. was issued on 03.08.2017 whereas the result was declared in the month of June-July as informed by Mr. Anukul Biswas. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the result of B.Ed. was issued earlier but the mark-sheet was issued on 03.08.2017 and the last date for the submission of the application form was 10.08.2017 as averred by the petitioner in para 8.2 of the writ petition, it can safely be held that respondent no. 3 had the requisite qualification on the cut-off date. She is meritorious to the petitioner and she was appointed as Lecturer in the year 2018 and she is still working on said post. 8. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any -4- good ground to interfere with the appointment order of respondent No. 3. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha