1 2025:CGHC:44753 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6024 of 2022  Naresh Sinha S/o Shri Ghanshyam Sinha Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Darri, Block And Tahsil Dongargarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, P O And P S Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. District Education Officer Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ghyanshyam Kashyap, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey ORDER 02.09.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 Hon'ble Court may kindly be quash the impugned order dated 10.08.2022 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the respondent District Education Officer, District Raipur. 10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be direct to respondent authority to consider the candidature of petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Science) (E-Cadre) with all the consequential benefit vis-à-vis as per the condition prescribed by the NCTE, SCERT & Rules, 2019. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.02 18:56:24 +0530 2 10.3 grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/ reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioners.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner in this petition claiming 5% relaxation in the qualifying marks in his academic qualification which has been denied by the District Education Officer, District Raipur vide order dated 10.08.2022. He would further submit that the issue involved in the present petition is no more res integra, the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Abhishek Kumar Nirmalkar vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in WA No. 501 of 2022, has decided the issue with regard to entitlement of relaxation. 3. Learned State counsel would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the benefit of relaxation can be given prospectively but not retrospectively. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. The issue involved in the present case is no more res integra, the Hon’ble Division Bench has already decided the issue with regard to entitlement of relaxation in Writ Appeal No. 501 of 2022 and other connected matters vide judgment and order dated 10.2.2023. The Division Bench in paragraphs 50 and 51, held as under: ‘50. It is seen that a teacher of Panchayat Teacher Rules, 2012 and of Nagriya Nikay Teacher Rules, 2013, after completion of eight years of service, can also become a member of service under the Rules of 2019 through absorption. It is already noticed that under Panchayat Teacher Rules, 2012 as well as Nagriya Nikay Teacher Rules, 2013, relaxation of 5% in the qualification marks are given to the candidates belonging to 3 reserved categories such as SC/ST/OBC/PH. Since there is reference to RTE Act, necessarily, the Rules of 2019 takes within its fold the minimum qualification as prescribed by NCTE. 51. In view of the above discussion, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ appeals are allowed holding that the SC/ST/OBC candidates are entitled to 5% relaxation in their academic qualifications and such of the writ petitioners who would consequently fulfill the minimum qualification shall be entitled to be appointed pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.03.2019.’ 6. Recently, the Division Bench has allowed W.A. No. 191 of 2023 vide judgment dated 21.4.2023 relying upon the judgment passed in W.A. No.501 of 2022. 7. Considering the fact that the issue has already been decided by the Division Bench in W.A. No.501 of 2022 and other connected matters where in the last paragraph, the Hon’ble Division Bench has observed that the petitioners would be entitled to be appointed pursuant to the advertisement dated 9.3.2019 and it has been given retrospective effect. Therefore, in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, this petition is hereby allowed and the order passed by respondent No.3 – District Education Officer (Annexure-P/1) whereby the candidature of the petitioner was rejected, is hereby set aside. The SC/ST/OBC candidates are entitled to 5% relaxation in their academic qualifications and such of the writ petitioners who would consequently fulfill the minimum qualification shall be entitled to be appointed pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.03.2019. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to move a representation before respondent No. 3, and in turn, the respondent No. 3 is directed to decide representation in light of observation made herein-above, preferably within a period of 60 days. 4 8. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant