1 2025:CGHC:33166-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 480 of 2025 1. Kapil Dev S/o Sham Kumar Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Nakna, Post Bataikela, Tehsil Batauli, District Surguja, Pin 497101, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 1) 2. Parvati Komare D/o Shivnath Singh Komare Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Ategarda, Post Dighwadhi, Tehsil Khadhgaon, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chouki, Pin 491229 Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 2) 3. Anamika Singh D/o Shivbhajan Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Shivnandanpur, Post Bishrampur, Tehsil Surajpur, District - Surajpur, Pin 497226, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 4) 4. Kaushilya Thakur D/o Agyaram Thakur Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Dumarpali, Post Dumarpali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 493551 (Petitioner No. 6) 5. Durgeshwari D/o Harishchandra Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bharda, Post Dhadaha, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 493663 (Petitioner No. 7) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1) 2. Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Block C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.16 17:44:41 +0530 2 3. Joint Director Education Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3) 4. Joint Director Education Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 4) 5. Balram S/o Malikram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Navalpur, Post Gadamor, Tehsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 3) 6. Gulab Chand Kothari S/o Dayaram Kothari Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Dumardih, Post Patora, Tehsil Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 5) ...Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16 .07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. Considering the grounds mentioned in the application (I.A. No. 1 of 2025), the same is allowed. Delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 7710 of 2024 (Kapil Dev & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned State counsel that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 466 of 2025 (Indu Bhagat & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) vide order dated 14.07.2025 observing as follows : “15. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge while relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Tej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and others, (2025) 2 SCC 1, Mohd. Rashid v. Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat and others, (2020) 2 SCC 582, Commissioner of Police and Another v. Umesh Kumar, (2020) 10 SCC 448 and M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Naveen Mathew Philip and another reported in [2023] LiveLaw (SC) 320, has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “13. From perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petitions, it is apparent that the petitioners have applied for the post of Assistant Teacher “E” and “T” cadre in their respective subjects. On the basis of their requisite qualification as well as the marks obtained by them, they were selected for 4 counselling, however, in the counselling, they could not get the cut-off marks as prescribed by the respondent authorities. The cut-off marks were time to time revised, however, instead of that, the petitioners were not able to be accommodated for the appointment of Assistant Teacher “E” and “T” cadre in their respective subjects till 5th round of counselling. 14. From perusal of the documents as well as the advertisement dated 04.05.2023, it is apparent that when the posts could not be fulfilled and were lying vacant for about more than three years, they were carried forward. x x x x x x 18. Now, reverting back to the present writ petitions, when they are examined in the light of aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is ample clear that even after selection for the post of Assistant Teacher “E” and “T” cadre, the petitioners who had been succeeded in selection process and whose documents were verified, did not confer a vested right to be appointed. Admittedly, the petitioners, who are aspirants for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers “E” and “T” cadre, have failed to secure marks above the cut-off marks for the post of Assistant Teachers “E” and “T” cadre, therefore, it cannot be recorded to have acquired an indefeasible right to be appointed on the said posts merely on the ground that their names appear in the select merit list. The respondent authorities did their best in the process of selection 5 as there were as many as 4 rounds of counselling, however, even in the 5th round of counselling, the petitioners could not be appointed, as they could not cross the cut-off marks as prescribed the respondent authorities. The judgment cited by the petitioners is also relevant to the aspect that the person who gets placed in the select list gets no indefeasible right to be appointed even if the vacancies are available. The rider would be that the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to any selected candidate. However, in the present matters, there is a plausible reason for not appointing the petitioners to the post of Assistant Teacher “E” and “T” cadre as the petitioners could not compete the cut- off marks prescribed by the respondent authorities and in that view of the matter, even if posts are lying vacant, the petitioners cannot claim for appointment only on the basis of their selection as the selection is altogether different thing from appointed. 19. It is admitted position that when the posts could not be fulfilled even after 5th round of counselling, the respondent authorities were having no way left except to carry forward those vacant posts for new advertisement which cannot be said to be faulted with. The respondent authorities/State has rightly issued an advertisement dated 04.05.2023 for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher “E” and “T” cadre while carrying forward the remaining seats which could not be fulfilled in the earlier round of recruitment process, which cannot be interfered with by this Court. 6 x x x x x x 21. Looking into all the aforesaid aspects of the matter, this Court do not consider present to be fit cases for interfering with the acts of respondent authorities/State, in extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. Accordingly, the present petitions, being devoid of merits are liable to be and are hereby dismissed.” 16. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also applying the principles laid down in the matters of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), Mohd. Rashid (supra), Umesh Kumar (supra) and Naveen Mathew Philip (supra), we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons and as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.7701 of 2024 (Indu Bhagat and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others). 17. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 466 of 2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to 7 WA No. 466 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 466 of 2025. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 14.07.2025 passed in WA No. 466 of 2025 (Indu Bhagat & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan