1 / 4 2025:CGHC:23278-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 325 of 2025 1 Gopi Kumar Sahu S/o Ramhu Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Bisatola , Post- Singhangarh, Tehsil- Sahapur Lohara, District (Kawardha) Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Kabirdham, District (Kawardha) Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 3 Santosh Kumar Working As Lecturer ( Panchayat ) And Posted At Government High School Danikakhurd , Block Sahaspur Lohara, District- (Kawardha) Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Bhagel, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ankur Biswas, Advocate JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13 10:55:04 +0530 2 / 4 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12.06.2025 1. The appellant/writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No.4400 of 2018, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 2. Facts of the case, in short, is 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. Last date for the submission of the application form was 10.08.2017 and the required qualification for the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) was Post-Graduation in a particular subject along with B.Ed, the 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. Further, 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 and respondent No. 3 was appointed contrary to the rules and circulars issued by the State. 3. In the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:- 3 / 4 “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 good ground to interfere with the appointment order of responder No. 3. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). 4. The writ appeal has been filed by the appellant reiterating the same plea challenging the appointment of respondent No. 3 as he has obtained his B.Ed degree after the cut of date which is in contrary to the notification dated 20.11.2017, whereas the petitioner was of the OBC candidate and was having B.Ed degree before the cut off date. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 4 / 4 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition that the B.Ed result of respondent No. 3 was issued earlier but the mark-sheet was issued on 03.08.2017 and the last date for the submission was 10.08.2017, thus it can safely be held that respondent No. 3 has the requisite qualification on the cut-off date. 8. In view of foregoing, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar