1 2025:CGHC:35603 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4063 of 2021 Parman Kawachi S/o Shri Nakchheda Ram Kawachi Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Bharritola, P.S. Aamobeda, Tahsil Antagarh, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh, Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector Kanker District Kanker Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Kanker District Kanker Chhattisgarh. 6 - District Education Officer Kanker District Kanker Chhattisgarh. 7 - District Project Coordinator Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission Kanker District Kanker Chhattisgarh. 8 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Antagarh, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. 9 - Block Education Officer Block Antagarh, District Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23/07/2025 2 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 /set-aside impugned order dated 26.04.2021 (Annexure P-1) and petitioner may be diverted Shiksha Karmi Grade-3 (Assistant Teacher Grade-3 now) from the post of Shiksha Guarantee Guruji as per Rules 1997 and 2004 within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to grant absorption the petitioner in the education department on the post of Assistant Teacher (L.B.) on the basis of completion of 8 years of service, 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Guruji in the year 1999. The petitioner was granted a period of two years, i.e. from 2004 to 2006, to pass the Higher Secondary Examination. This period was subsequently extended up to the year 2008, but the petitioner could pass the said examination in the year 2012. He would further submit that earlier, representations were made by the petitioner seeking reinstatement in service, and directions were issued to the respondent authorities to decide the representation. He also submits that the representation made by the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.8 vide order dated 26.04.2021; thus, he prays for quashing the order impugned. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that the petitioner was granted ample opportunity to 3 acquire the requisite qualification of Higher Secondary (Class 12 th) from 2004 to 2008, but he failed to acquire the requisite qualification within the prescribed time and eventually passed Class 12th only in the year 2012. Therefore, his services were discontinued. 4. The respondents further submit that the petitioner’s services cannot be absorbed against the post of Assistant Teacher in the absence of the required qualification. It is also submitted that the petitioner has now attained the age of 60 years, and therefore, the relief sought by him has become purely academic. They would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. It is evident from the documents that the petitioner was granted sufficient time to acquire the required qualification of Higher Secondary but he failed to acquire the requisite qualification within the prescribed period. The petitioner passed the Class 12th examination in the year 2012, much after the extended deadline of 2008. His services were thus discontinued as per the applicable rules. Further, the petitioner has now attained the age of 60 years. 6. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, no case for interference is made out in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim