1 2025:CGHC:39235 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4634 of 2021  Shesh Narayan Dewangan S/o Late Gangdev Prasad Dewangan Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- petitioners versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Po And Police Station Rakhi, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh State Of Chhattisgarh. 3. Divisional Joint Director Education Division Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 5310 of 2021  Ajay Kumar Kashyap S/o Shri Rameshwar Kashyap, Aged About 31 Years R/o 157, Kashyap Para, Mungjhar, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ---petitioners Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Po And Ps Rakhi, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Divisional Joint Director, Education Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 5463 of 2021  Dukesh Kumar S/o Shri Champat Lal Aged About 25 Years R/o Patel Para, Kandai, Ninwa, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ---petitioners SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.11 17:54:02 +0530 2 Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.O. And P.S. Rakhi, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh State Of Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Divisional Joint Director Education Division Sarguja, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For petitioners : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. T.L. Bareth, and Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyers Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06. 08.2025 1. The petitioners have filed these petitions seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 To kindly quash the order dated 22.01.2021, 21.01.2021 & 23.01.2021 respectively, (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 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 petitioners would submit that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process for selection of Teacher. He would fairly submit that the petitioners have acquired qualification of CTET after submission of application and declaration of result by respondent authorities. He would submit that at time of verification of the documents, the petitioners were having qualification of CTET and that documents were placed by the petitioners before the 3 concerned authority. He would contend that the candidature of the petitioners have been rejected on the ground that on the date of submission of application, the petitioners were not having said qualification. He would submit that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioners 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, learned Panel Lawyers appearing for the State/respondents would oppose. They would submit that on the date of submission of application form, the petitioners were not having requisite qualification of CTET, therefore, their candidature were rejected. They would contend that subsequently acquiring requisite qualification would not make the petitioners eligible for post of Teacher. They would submit that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by Mr. Ishan Verma, these petitions, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to make fresh representation raising all their 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 petitioners 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.etition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant