1 2025:CGHC:6839 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5552 of 2022 1 - Ranjana Meshram W/o Dushyant Kumar Damle Aged About 38 Years D/o Tilak Chand Meshram R/o Behind Kasturba School, Gokuldham Colony, Old Ram Nagar, Ward No. 8, Shanker Nagar, Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of School Education Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur,, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Department Of School Education, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Vaishnav, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/02/2025 1. Heard Mr. Virendra Vaishnav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate for the State/respondent/s. 2. By this petition the petitioner prayed for following relief(s) : “10.1 issue a orders or writs in the nature of certiorari, by quashing the order/letter 2 dated 10/8/2022, issued by the respondent no. 3. 10.2 issue a order or writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to declare the petitioner as a qualified candidate for the post of Assistant Teacher Science and according the appointment order for the post of Assistant Teacher Science be issue in favour of the petitioner and further please to grant all consequential relief flowing from the appointment order for the date when the appointment order issue in favour of the candidate who were called for document verification on 10/8/2022. 10.3 Any other relief which the Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of graduation in the last year, he has obtained TET certificate and as such he is eligible for appointment to the post of Teacher – English, however, the respondents have rejected his candidature on the ground that during studies of his bachelor course he has obtained said TET certificate, as such, it can not be granted. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in an identical matter, the co-ordinate bench had allowed in part WPS No.1643 of 2022 (Arvind Kumar Kashyap vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) vide order dated 26.07.2024 observing as follows : “13. This Court is unable to accept the submission made by the State counsel 3 because a reading of clause 2 of the Rules of 2019 would indicate that a person who is graduate and 1 year or 2 year B.Ed. appearing in the inal year or passed similar proposition has been laid down throughout. Therefore, since the petitioner is graduate and appeared in the TET examination in the last year of graduation it cannot be said that he loses the mandatory eligibility criteria. Apart from that, it is to be seen that the petitioner was successful and his certificate has not been declared illegal by any agency. Though guideline of TET gives a right to the recruitment agency / appointing authority to take final decision but the final decision has to be based on substantial and justifiable reasoning. It is to be seen that the examination agency of TET has permitted the petitioner to appear in the TET and as such no objection has been raised by the examination agency with regard to validity of the certificate issued. The TET certificate is provided to those students for specialization in teaching. Petitioner is having that eligibility criteria and simply because he has done in the inal year of graduation, in the opinion of this Court cannot disentitle him for appointment to the post of Teacher only on this technical ground. It is not a case that the petitioner was not successful in passing the examination or his certificate is invalid. 14. Furthermore, from the document annexed to the rejoinder in WPS No. 1642/2022 it is manifest that the concerned candidates completed TET in the year 2017 and the graduation in the year 2017. In other words, they cleared the TET examination being in the final year of graduation but they were given 4 appointment on the post of teacher. It is significant to 4 mention here that by order dated 11.03.2022 the co- ordinate Bench of this Court directed the respondents to keep one post vacant against the category to which the petitioner belongs. 15. In aforesaid view of the matter, the petition is allowed, and the communication (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. Let the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher be considered in accordance with law and appropriate order be passed in this regard within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” 4. Since, the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WPS No.1643 of 2022, this petition may also be decided in terms of para 13, 14 and 15 of the same. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents do not have any objection on the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Considering the fact and the nature of dispute and further considering the fact that in identical matter the coordinate bench has decided the dispute which also amounts to the dispute of the petitioner, his petition is liable to be allowed in terms of WPS No.1643 of 2022. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 26.07.2024 passed in WPS No.1643 of 2022. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna SHAYNA KADRI Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI