1 2025:CGHC:12707 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4904 of 2021 Ishwari Lal Verma S/o Shri Kumbh Lal Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Khairjhity Post Damardih (Kurud) Block And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate of Public Instruction Chhattisgarh, Raipur Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Department of Education, Division Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents /State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 17.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Satish Gupta, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.03.27 18:51:22 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the inaction on the respondent authorities by which they have held the petitioner to be ineligible for appointment to the post of Teacher (English) E-Cadre. The petitioner has successfully participated in the examination and after being successful, he has been called for verification of the documents. The petitioner has been eligible on the ground that he has acquired graduation after passing B.Ed. decree whereas in the advertisement, there is no such condition was prescribed. The petitioner completed his earlier graduation in the year 2009 and thereafter, he has completed B.Ed. in the year 2011. Subsequently, he has acquired graduation in English Literature in the year 2015, as such the ground of rejection is not in accordance with law. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash Annexure P-1 and direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher (English) with all consequential benefit, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 3 4. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that candidature of the petitioner can not be rejected on the post of post of Teacher (English) E-Cadre only on the ground he has obtained B.Ed. decree prior to his graduation degree in English Literature. The petitioner was earlier graduated in the year 2009 and thereafter, he has completed his B.Ed. degree in the year 2011. It is further case of the petitioner that when an advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of Teacher (English) E-Cadre, the petitioner has applied for the same and he was also successful in every aspect as he has completed the required criteria as laid down by the authorities. However, during the course of verification of the document,s his candidature has been rejected on the ground that he has obtained B.Ed. decree prior to his graduation in English Literature, as such he is not eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher (English) E-Cadre. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has completed his first graduation in the Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in the year 2009 from Govt. Digvijay P.G. College, Rajnandgaon and thereafter in the year 2011, he did Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur. Subsequently, the petitioner did his second graduation as Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) with English Literature in the year 2015 from the MATS University. It is thus submitted that the petitioner is fully eligible for the post of Teacher (English) E-Cadre and the reason assigned for rejection of his candidature by the order impugned is misconceived and 4 liable to be thrown out, the petition may be allowed and the relief claimed by the petitioner may be granted. It has been contended that on the same grounds, two candidate namely Aman Swarnkar and Manju Kesery was found eligible and they were appointed for the respect posts, however, petitioner has been discriminated, which is not in accordance with law. Reliance has been placed upon the orders rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matters of Arvind Kumar Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in Writ Petition (S) No.1643/2022 decided on 26.07.2024 and Smt. Pushpa Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in Writ Petition (S) No.847/2021 decided on 17.09.2024 to buttress his submissions. 6. On the other hand, supporting the order impugned to be just and proper counsel appearing for the State submits that thought the petitioner did his graduation twice yet since he applied for appointment of Teacher (English) E-Cadre, he should have completed his graduation i.e. B.A. (English subject) before B.Ed. degree obtained in the year 2009. He further submits that the decision of the appointing authority would be final to ascertain the eligibility criteria of the petitioner, and therefore, the impugned order rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is fully justified. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusal the documents annexed with the writ petition. 5 8. From the perusal of the record, it seems that the petitioner has graduated in two subjects, i.e. in first round, he has graduated in B.A. in the year 2009 and thereafter he has completed his B.Ed. degree in the year 2011. Subsequently, he has completed his graduation in B.A. including the subject English Literature in the year 2015 and hence, he is eligible for the post of Teacher (English) E-Cadre. The reason for denial that the petitioner has obtained graduation before B.Ed. degree is totally misconceived. It will not make any difference if the petitioner has obtained B.Ed. degree after graduating in some other subject and thereafter, he has completed his graduation in English Literature subject. It has been further reflected that that case of similarly persons have been considered and they have been given appointment order, as such, no discrimination can be made in respect of the petitioner also. 9. Rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is on the ground that he has done his graduation twice. Advertisement does not reflect whether a person who has done graduation twice is not entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of Teacher (English). Learned State counsel has tried to persuade this Court that the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher (English) and until and unless, he had done his graduation in English subject before B.Ed. degree. This submission does not seems to be proper or justified. Rejection is just on the ground that he has done his graduation twice and therefore, the State cannot go beyond the reason 6 assigned while passing the impugned order by improving its case during the course of argument in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, reported in (1978) 1SCC 405. 10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.02.2021 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is hereby set aide. The respondents are directed to issue appointment order on the post of Teacher (English) E-Cadre in favour of the petitioner, if there is no any other impediment. This exercise shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 11. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh