1 2025:CGHC:47211 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9897 of 2019 Dilip Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Ram Lal Tiwari, Aged 61 Years, Occupation Service, Posted as Lecturer at Government Higher Secondary School Chhind, Block And Tehsil Sarangarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, R/o Jail Para Ward No. 7, Sarangarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 Director Public Instructions, Directorate Of Public Instruction Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Block - 3, First Floor, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4 District Education Officer (D.E.O.) Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SN Nande, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 15/09/2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.11.2019 issued by respondent No.2, whereby, his promotion from the post of UDT to the post of Lecturer (Political Science) vide order 27.9.2008 was cancelled. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that upon receipt of the complaint alleging that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Lecturer from the post of Upper Division Teacher in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 8 (2) of the Chhattisgarh School Education Gazetted Service (School Level) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2008, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.9.2019. According to the Rules, the qualification of the B.Ed/B.L.Ed. is the minimum qualification for promotion to the post of Lecturer, however, the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification. In his reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner admitted the said fact and stated that he had not suppressed anything at the time of promotion and he was clearly shown as untrained in the records. It has been further averred that the petitioner belongs to 3 the Physically Challenged Category and was also sent for B.Ed. Training on 26.6.2006, however, by the said date, he had already crossed the age for obtaining the B.Ed. Qualification. Hence, the petitioner’s candidature was not accepted by the competent authorities. After considering the said reply, the impugned order was passed and his promotion order was cancelled. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Director, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, is not the competent authority to issue the cancellation order and the same ought to have been issued by the State Government. He would further submit that the petitioner has not suppressed or concealed any substantial fact in the proceedings relating to his promotion. After about 11 years, his promotion was cancelled, when the petitioner was on the verge of retirement and further, at the time of issuance of the show cause notice, only 1 ½ years of service were left. Moreover, the petitioner also belongs to the Physically Challenged category. He would also submit that the petitioner was also recommended for B.Ed. Training but the institution did not accept his candidature as he had crossed the age of 45 years. In such backdrop, the impugned order is not sustainable and thus, he prays that the same be set-aside. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition with utmost circumspection. 5. Indisputably, on the date of promotion, the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications for the post of Lecturer. The 4 norms were fixed in the Chhattisgarh School Education Gazetted Service (School Level) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2008, which were published in the Chattisgarh Gazette on 13.8.2008 and the promotion order was issued on 27.9.2008 i.e. after the promulgation of the aforesaid rules. The concerned members of the DPC ignored the settled norms and without any authority, passed the promotion order in favour of the petitioner though he did not possess the requisite qualification for the said post. Hence, upon receipt of the said complaint, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the above fact has not been disputed or denied by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice. 6. Although the petitioner claims to have rendered about 11 years of substantial service on the post of Lecturer and is on the verge of retirement and also belongs to the Physically Challenged category, this Court is of the considered view that these grounds are insufficient to relax the promotion rules. When criteria have been fixed by the authorities, a wrong order issued by the Promotion Committee against the settled norms can be set-aside as and when it comes to the notice of the authorities. Hence, this Court does not find any error or arbitrary action on the part of the State. 7. Furthermore, in the matter of Shravan Kumar Pradhan and others Vs. Union of India and others (WPS No.2358 of 2024 decided on 26.7.2024), it has been observed by this Court that even the State Government has no authority to dilute the requisite 5 qualification of B.Ed. for promotion on the post of the Lecturer as the minimum qualification of B.Ed. fixed by the NCTE under the National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualification for Persons to be recruited as an Education Teacher and Physical Education Teacher in Pre-primary, Primary, Upper Primary, Secondary, Senior Secondary or Intermediate Schools or Colleges), Regulations, 2014 is prevailing over the Rules framed by the State. 8. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna