1 2025:CGHC:38369 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5362 of 2021 * - Rahul Das Nishad S/o Shri Preetam Das Nishad Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 17, Shiv Mandir Road Khairagarh, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar P. O. And P. S. Rakhi, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 – Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Joint Director, Education Division Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 To kindly quash the order dated 21.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Divisional Joint Director, Education Division, Durg. 10.2 To issue appropriate writ, directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher (E & T) cadre) on the basis of CTET certificate. 10.3 Grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/ reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.07 20:00:42 +0530 2 in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. 2. Mr. Ishan Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for selection of Teacher, subject English. He would fairly submit that the petitioner acquired qualification of CTET after submission of application and declaration of result by respondent authorities. He would submit that at that time of verification of the documents, the petitioner was having qualification of CTET and that document was placed by the petitioner before the concerned authority. He would contend that the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that on the date of submission of application, the petitioner was not having said qualification. He would submit that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in the matter of Himmat Singh Bais Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. passed in WPS No. 2353/2011 dated 25.08. 2011. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Vedant Shadangi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would oppose. He would submit that on the date of submission of application form, the petitioner was not having requisite qualification of CTET, therefore, his candidature was rejected. He would contend that subsequently acquiring requisite qualification would not make the petitioner eligible for post of Teacher (English). He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 3 5. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by Mr. Ishan Verma, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a fresh representation raising all his grievances as informed by Mr. Ishan Verma that the posts are still lying vacant and in turn, respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the representation so made by the petitioner expeditiously strictly in accordance with law after due verification of the vacancy, eligibility. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 7. With the aforesaid direction(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti