1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5546 of 2018 1 - Aushotosh Choubey S/o Shri Shobhnath Choubey Aged About 24 Years R/o Near Global Public School, Surajpur, Police Station And Tahsil- Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Zila Panchayat Surajpur Through Chief Executive Officer, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Janpad Panchayat Surajpur Through Chief Executive Officer, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Revenue And Civil District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Shri Aniket Verma, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.08.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable Writ (S), Order (S) and Direction (s) by quashing the impugned letter of communication dated 08/08/2018 (filed as Annexure P-1), issued from the office of Respondent No. 2, and further be pleased to direct the office of the respondent No. 2 to complete the selection process by issuing appointment letter to the petitioner on the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) (Botany). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the respondents and courts below for its kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that in the year 2017, the office of respondent No.2 issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Lecturer (Panchayat), for a total number of 113 posts. The last date for the submission of the online application form was 10.8.2017. The recruitment was governed by the Chhattisgarh Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012. The eligibility criteria prescribed were a Post-Graduation and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) degree. He would further submit that the petitioner had applied for the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) in the Botany subject and possessed the requisite qualifications. The examination was conducted by VYAPAM, and the petitioner scored 41.414 marks. He would further contend that the petitioner was selected but was denied appointment on the ground that she had completed two degrees in the same academic year. A communication in this regard was issued to the petitioner by the office of respondent No.2 on 8.8.2018. He would further argue that the decision taken by 3 respondent No.2, dated 8.8.2018, is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. He would also contend that the respondents have illegally ignored the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC). He would also argue that the petitioner completed her M.Sc in Botany from MATS University under an Open and Distance Learning (ODL) program and her B.Ed from Bilaspur University as a regular student. He would also submit that the UGC Guidelines provide for an exemption permitting one regular course along with one program under the ODL mode. He would contend that the impugned communication is punitive in nature and therefore, prays that the petition be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner has not arrayed the Sarguja University as a party respondent, though the University clarified the fact vide letter dated 26.6.2018 that two educational degrees obtained in one academic session would not be valid and that no employment can be granted on the basis of such degrees. They would submit that the petitioner pursued two separate courses in the same academic year, which is contrary to the guidelines issued by the University. It is further contended that the guidelines of the University Grants Commission and other Boards would not be applicable in the present case and that the ordinance issued by the University shall prevail. It is also argued that the said ordinance was issued by the University according to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, which has the force of law. They would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. In the present case, the petitioner was not found eligible for appointment as she had pursued two courses in one academic session, which was found to be in violation of the ordinance issued by Surguja University. The petitioner has not arrayed the Surguja University as a party respondent, and at the same time, has failed to challenge the ordinance issued by the University. 6. The order (Annexure-P/1) dated 8.8.2018 would show that the ordinance passed by the Surguja University, Ambikapur, dated 1.8.2018, was annexed along with the impugned order; however, the said ordinance has not been placed on record and has not been challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition. 7. Considering the above-stated facts, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the order impugned. 8. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi