1 2025:CGHC:9640 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4875 of 2021 1 - Ku. Preeti Sidar D/o Lekhram Sidar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Darri, Post Baghoud, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Poonam Chouhan D/o Santosh Ram Chouhan Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Devgarh, Post Devgarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Divya Vaishnava D/o Sohan Das Vaishnava Aged About 26 Years R/o Mig-19 Chiranjeev Das Nagar, Metro Hospital, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Public Instructions, Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 6183 of 2022 1 - Sharda Rajwade D/o Laxmi Narayan Rajwade Aged About 31 Years Residence Of Front Of Merical Church, Podibahar, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Public Instructions, Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 2 WPS No. 6322 of 2022 1 - Vivek Sahu S/o Mohan Lal Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dansara, Block Sarangarh, District : Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate, Public Instructions, Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Koriya, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajit Singh, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25/02/2025 1. Challenge in this bunch of writ petitions are to the letter dated 19.08.2021 wherein petitioners have been declared ineligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Arts). As the issue involve in this batch of writ petitions are similar and identical, they are clubbed together, heard and being decided together. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 09.03.2019, petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Arts). In the examination conducted by VYAPAM, petitioners stood in merit position. On being successful, petitioners have been called for counseling and were declared eligible for 3 appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Arts). Vide letter dated 19.08.2021 petitioners were declared ineligible for the reason that they have not passed Higher Secondary with Arts subject and passed Higher Secondary with Commerce subject. 3. In all the writ petitions, following reliefs have been prayed for : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the letters dated 19.08.2021, 27.03.2021 (in W.P.S. No. 4875/2021), letter dated 19.09.2022 (in W.P.S. No. 6183/2022) and letter dated 14.09.2022 (in W.P.S. No. 6322/2022) whereby the petitioners have been declared ineligible for the post of Assistant Teacher (Arts) and further direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners for the post of Assistant Teacher (Arts). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners were mainly disqualified on the ground that they have passed Higher Secondary with Commerce subject whereas post is for Assistant Teacher English (Arts) in primary school. They are having requisite qualification like Dl.Ed. / B.Ed and have also cleared TET examination, however, in spite of this fact, respondent authorities are not considering their candidature and they are not being considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Arts). It is further contention of learned counsel for petitioner that similarly situated persons have been considered in other Districts. 4 5. Learned State counsel has come up with a reply in which it is clearly stated that petitioners are eligible for appointment vide paragraph 9 and 10 of the reply of the State which is reproduced below : “9. However, the answering Respondent respectfully submitted that the decision made by the concerned District Education Officer was based on their understanding and interpretation of the eligibility criteria as mentioned in the advertisement. Despite this, it is acknowledged that the interpretation may not have been entirely correct or appropriate in light of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019. These rules, known as the "Chhattisgarh School Education Services Rules, 2019," should have been adhered to more closely in this case. 10. The answering Respondent respectfully submitted that the interpretation of " व्यावसायियक शि क्षा" differs from that of a general Commerce subject. The note in the advertisement implies that vocational education refers to specialization in particular courses and not to subjects under the definition of Commerce. Based on this interpretation, the authority acted in accordance with the conditions mentioned in the advertisement and passed the order accordingly. Therefore, the actions and decisions taken by the authority were just and proper.” 6. According to the above quoted reply, there is no dispute in respect of appointment of petitioners. It is further contended that by the interim order dated 18.06.2021, one post has also been kept vacant, as such, there is no hurdle in appointing concerned petitioners on the said post. 5 7. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties, in particular, submission made by learned State counsel in which it is clearly stated that petitioners are eligibility and similar situated persons have been considered in other Districts, this petition is allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to consider case of petitioners for appointment as Assistant Teacher (Arts) in primary school as advertised by respondent authorities within 45 days. 8. With this observation and direction, writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna