1 2025:CGHC:57639 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7163 of 2022 1 - Jitendra Kumar S/o Shri Ashwani Kumar Aged About 29 Years R/o H.No. 121, Sanjay Para Salhe, District Balod (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretarty School Education Department Ministry Mahanadi Bhawan P.O. And P.S. Rakhi Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Deputy Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 509 of 2025 1 - Khomendra Kumar Ganjir S/o Dhan Singh Ganjir Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Penwaro, Post Tarri, District- Balod Chhattisgarh, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Officer And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Officer And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Deputy Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Officer And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 5 - Mats University Through Its Vice Chancellor, Mats University, Aarang Kharora Highway, Aarang, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur Through The Registrar, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - University Grants Commission Through The Registrar, Bahadurshah Jafar Marg, New Delhi 110002 --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 1128 of 2023 1 - Amar Kiran Chandrawanshi S/o Shri Durga Prasad Chandrawanshi Aged About 30 Years R/o- Ward No. 12, Mathpara, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Office And Police Station Rakhi, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - University Grants Commission Through The Secretary Government Of India Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi 110002 3 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Through Its Registrar, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - Dr. C.V. Raman University, Through Its Registrar, Kargi Road, Kota, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 1736 of 2023 1 - Tikeshwar Kumar Dhruw S/o Bed Singh Dhruw Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Badgaon, Tahsil Kasdol, Post Bhithidih, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Post And Police Station Mandir Hasaud,raipur, Cg 2 - Director Public Instructions Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Block -C, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 3 - Deputy Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Block- C, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Mats University Through Its Registrar, Arang-Kharora Highway Arang Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Dr. C. V. Raman University Through Its Registrar, Kargi Road, Kota, Bilaspur,, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 1600 of 2023 1 - Yogesh Kumar Patel S/o Shri Loknath Patel Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Amlikapa, Post Amora, Police Station- Jarhagaon, Tehsil- Pathariya, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh- 495330 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capitol Complex, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Of School Education Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sangeet Soni (Roll No. 25041324) S/o Shri Radhe Lal Soni, (Selected At Serial No. 85, The Last Candidate Of Obc Category) Through Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 249 of 2023 1 - Mamta Kashyap W/o Virendra Kashyap Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Dhobghatti, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Po And Ps Rakhi, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - University Grants Commission Through The Secretary Government Of India Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi 110002 4 3 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Atal Bihari Vajpayee University Through Its Registrar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Dr. C.V. Raman University Through Its Registrar, Kargi Road, Kota, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 1278 of 2025 1 - Linesh Kumar Deewan S/o Rohit Kumar Deewan Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Kanharpuri Post Kurud District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Public Instructions Indravati Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Deputy Director Public Instructions Indravati Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Pt. Sundarlal Sharma (Open) University Chhattisgarh Bilaspur Through Its Vice Chancellor Koni Bilaspur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Raipur Through The Registrar Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Raipur (C.G.) 7 - University Grants Commission Through The Registrar Bahadurshah Jafar Marg New Delhi 110002 --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 474 of 2025 1 - Pintoo Kumar Singroul S/o Kanhaiya Lal Singroul Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Kodwakala, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham C.G., Distruct- Kawardha (Kabirdham) C.G. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 5 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Director Directorate Of Publice Instructions Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, Distruct Raipur, C.G. 3 - Joint Director Public Insturctions Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 4 - Deputy Director Public Instructions Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 5 - Atal Bihari Vajpayee Vishwavidyalaya Bilaspur Through Its Vice Chancellor, Koni, District - Bilaspur, (C.G.) 6 - Dr. C. V. Raman University Through Its Vice Chancellor, Kota, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur, C.G. 7 - University Grants Commission Through The Registrar, Bahadurshah Jafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002 --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 7900 of 2022 1 - Smt. Shilpi Mukharjee @ Shilpi Roy W/o Shri Sajal Kumar Roy Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Indira Colony, Chikhalakasa, Post Dallirajhara, Block Doundi, District Balod (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Pt. Sunder Lal Sharma (Open) University Through The Registrar, Koni-Birkoni Marg, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 8759 of 2023 1 - Atul Kumar Mishra S/o S.P. Mishra Aged About 34 Years R/o Sagar Hardware, Mukt Nagar Near Borsi Road, Maharaja Chowk Durg (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 6 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Office And Police Station Rakhi, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - University Grants Commission Through The Secretary, Government Of India Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi 110002. 3 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Dev Sanskriti College Of Education And Technology (Durg University) Through Its Principal, Khapri Dhamdha Road, Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Vardhman Mahaveer Open University Through Its Registrar Rawatbhata Rd, Vardhaman Mahaveer Open University, Akelgarh, Kota, Rajasthan. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 8741 of 2025 1 - Banshi Lal S/o Shri Kewal Ram Aged About 37 Years R/o 125 Mandavi Para, Perpar, Kanwar, Balod, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Insturctions Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director Public Instructions Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy Director Public Instructions Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Through Is Vice Chancellor, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Mats University Through Its Vice Chancellor, Arang Kharora Highway, Aarang Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 7 - University Grants Commission Through The Registrar, Bahadurshah Jafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002. --- Respondent(s) 7 WPS No. 223 of 2025 1 - Ashok Kumar Sahu S/o Shatruhan Lal Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o H. No. 68/4, Ward No. 48, Nandai Kothar Para, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station- Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station- Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station- Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station- Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Mats University Through Its Vice Chancellor, Mats University, Aarang Kharora Highway, Aarang, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur Through The Registrar, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - University Grants Commission Through The Registrar, Bahadurshah Jafar Marg, New Delhi 110002. --- Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For respective Petitioners : Mr. Ishan Verma, Mr. Faisal Akhtar, Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Mr. Rahul Kumar, Mr. Ashutosh Singh on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Mr. Topilal Bareth, Advocates For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate and Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer For respective Respondents : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Mr. Alok Bakshi, Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Mr. B. S. Rajput, Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Mr. Abhinav Sharma appearing on behalf of Mr. Vikram Sharma, Mr. Harsh Tripathi, Ms. Aishley Shrivastava appearing on behalf of Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocates Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (26.11.2025) 1. The contents and factual matrix involved in all the writ petitions would revel that the bone of contention in them is one and same, 8 as such, all these writ petitions are clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. All the petitioners in these connected writ petitions challenge various rejection orders issued by the Director/Deputy Director/Joint Director, Directorate of Public Instruction, whereby their candidatures for appointment to the posts of Lecturer in different subjects, such as Mathematics, English, Physics, Chemistry, Commerce and E&T Cadre, have been rejected on the singular ground that they obtained two degrees simultaneously in the same academic year, typically a combination of B.Ed. in regular mode and a postgraduate degree (M.A./M.Sc./M.Com.) in open or distance mode. In each case, despite the petitioners having successfully cleared the written examination and having been called for document verification, their names were excluded from the provisional selection lists or were shown as ineligible in the lists of disqualified candidates. The rejection orders uniformly rely on the reasoning that “two degrees cannot be pursued in one academic session,” even though the University Grants Commission, through its notification dated 28.12.2012 and the 2022 Guidelines titled “Guidelines for Pursuing Two Academic Programmes Simultaneously,” expressly permits students to pursue one regular degree along with one additional degree through open/distance mode, whether from the same or a different university. The petitioners assert that they acquired their qualifications strictly in accordance with UGC norms and other regulatory guidelines, and further point out that similarly situated 9 candidates in the Panchayat & Rural Development Department have been granted appointments despite holding simultaneous dual degrees, making the rejection of their candidature discriminatory and arbitrary. They also submit that representations filed pursuant to earlier directions of this Court have been dismissed mechanically by the authorities without appreciating the UGC guidelines or the fact that no such disqualification exists under Clause 9 of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment Rules, 2019. Aggrieved by the repeated rejection of their representations and denial of appointment solely on the erroneous ground of simultaneous acquisition of degrees, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashment of the impugned orders and a direction to consider their candidature for appointment in accordance with law. 3. Writ petition No. 7163 of 2022 has been taken as lead case in order to decide the issues involved in these matters. The petitioner in the said writ petition has prayed for following reliefs :-- “10.1 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the order dated 22.07.2022 (ANNEXURE P/1) issued by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Public Instructions whereby rejected the candidature of the petitioner. 10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to consider the candidature of petitioner for appointment on the post of Lecturer Mathematics (E & T cadre) on 10 the basis of mark-sheets submitted by the petitioner of B.Ed. & M.Sc. (Mathematics). 10.3 Hon'ble Court smay kindly be pleased to 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.” 4. The brief facts of the case, as projected in W.P. (S.) No. 7163 of 2022, are that the respondent–School Education Department issued an advertisement dated 09.03.2019 inviting applications for recruitment to various teaching posts, including 270 posts of Lecturer (Mathematics) under the E-Cadre and 400 posts of Lecturer (Mathematics) under the T-Cadre. As per the said advertisement, the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post of Lecturer (Mathematics) was a Post-Graduation degree in Mathematics along with a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree. The petitioner, possessing all requisite qualifications, duly submitted his application for the post of Lecturer (Mathematics) under both E-Cadre and T-Cadre. Upon scrutiny of his application, the respondents issued an admit card permitting the petitioner to appear in the written examination. The petitioner appeared in the examination and successfully qualified, demonstrating his merit and eligibility. Upon qualifying the written examination, the petitioner was called for document verification. The Deputy Director, Public Instruction Division, Raipur issued a letter dated 05.05.2022 directing the petitioner to appear for verification of 11 documents on 22.01.2022 along with all original educational testimonials. During the document verification held on 19.05.2022, the verification committee orally informed the petitioner that his candidature was liable to be rejected on the ground that his mark- sheets for B.Ed. and M.Sc. (Mathematics) appeared to relate to the same academic year. Subsequently, the respondents issued the impugned rejection order dated 22.07.2022, formally rejecting the petitioner's candidature on the same ground. The petitioner has duly completed his Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) through regular mode from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, passing the First Year on 26.09.2017 and the Second/Final Year on 03.08.2018. In addition to the above, the petitioner pursued M.Sc. (Mathematics) through distance mode from Pt. Sundarlal Sharma University, Bilaspur, by enrolling in 2018. He successfully completed the M.Sc. Previous Year on 25.08.2018, and the result of the Final Year was declared on 02.09.2019. The rejection of the petitioner’s candidature is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the academic norms laid down by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The UGC has issued comprehensive guidelines titled “Guidelines for Pursuing Two Academic Programmes Simultaneously” in April 2022, expressly permitting students to pursue two academic programmes concurrently, one in regular mode and another in Open and Distance Learning (ODL)/Online mode, or even two programmes in ODL/Online mode. As per the UGC guidelines, a student enrolled in a regular course is explicitly permitted to pursue another degree simultaneously through 12 distance, private, online, or part-time mode. Hence, the petitioner’s pursuit of a regular B.Ed. course alongside an M.Sc. degree in distance mode is permissible under the law, and therefore, rejection of his candidature on the ground of simultaneous degrees is illegal, erroneous, and unsustainable. Similar issues have been adjudicated by the High Court of Madras, wherein a candidate selected for the post of Deputy Collector was denied appointment because he obtained two degrees simultaneously, one in regular mode and the other through open university. The High Court, vide order dated 13.01.2015 in W.P. No. 18144/2014, held such rejection to be unsustainable and directed consideration of the candidate’s appointment. Neither the Recruitment Rules nor the advertisement dated 09.03.2019 stipulate any condition prohibiting candidates from possessing qualifications obtained simultaneously under regular and distance modes. It is a settled principle of law that the appointing authority is bound by the terms of the advertisement, and no additional disqualification can be introduced at a later stage, particularly at the time of document verification. Thus, rejection of the petitioner’s candidature on a non-existent ground is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The respondents cannot modify or alter the eligibility criteria after commencement of the selection process, as doing so amounts to changing the rules of the game after the game has begun, which is impermissible in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated this position in Tej Prakash 13 Pathak & Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., holding that alteration of selection norms mid-process is unconstitutional. Hence, the petitioner, having fulfilled all eligibility criteria and having successfully cleared the written examination, is illegally deprived of consideration for appointment solely due to an unjustified and legally unsustainable reason, leading to the filing of the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners jointly submits that the petitioners challenge various rejection orders issued by the Director/Deputy Director/Joint Director, Directorate of Public Instruction, whereby their candidatures for appointment to the posts of Lecturer in different subjects, such as Mathematics, English, Physics, Chemistry, Commerce, and E&T Cadre, have been rejected on the singular ground that they obtained two degrees simultaneously in the same academic year. Typically, this involves a combination of a B.Ed. degree in regular mode and a postgraduate degree (M.A./M.Sc./M.Com.) in open or distance mode. In each case, despite the petitioners having successfully cleared the written examination and having been called for document verification, their names were excluded from the provisional selection lists or were shown as ineligible in the lists of disqualified candidates. The rejection orders uniformly rely on the reasoning that “two degrees cannot be pursued in one academic session,” even though the University Grants Commission, through its notification dated 28.12.2012 and the 2022 “Guidelines for Pursuing Two Academic Programmes Simultaneously,” expressly 14 permits students to pursue one regular degree along with one additional degree through open/distance mode, whether from the same or a different university. The petitioners submit that they acquired their qualifications strictly in accordance with UGC norms and other regulatory guidelines. Further, similarly situated candidates in other departments, such as the Panchayat & Rural Development Department, have been granted appointments despite holding simultaneous dual degrees. The rejection of petitioners’ candidatures in these circumstances is discriminatory, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of fairness and equality. During document verification, the selection committees orally informed the petitioners that their candidatures were liable to be rejected on the erroneous premise that their postgraduate and B.Ed. mark-sheets related to the same academic year. In fact, the petitioners completed their B.Ed. courses in regular mode and postgraduate degrees in distance mode, with the dates of completion clearly demonstrating that there was no impermissible overlap. Therefore, the rejection orders stem from a factual misunderstanding and are without any legal basis. It is submitted that the University Grants Commission, in its “Guidelines for Pursuing Two Academic Programmes Simultaneously” dated April 2022, expressly permits a student to pursue one programme in regular mode and another in distance/online mode concurrently, subject to recognition of the institutions by UGC or the relevant statutory authority. Petitioners having pursued such courses fall squarely within the ambit of these guidelines. Consequently, the 15 rejection of candidatures solely on the ground of simultaneous academic enrolment is contrary to recognized academic norms and the applicable UGC guidelines. The disqualification of the petitioners constitutes an illegal, arbitrary, and colorable exercise of power. The petitioners were otherwise fully eligible and had fulfilled all the requisite qualifications for the posts applied for. The respondents’ actions, based on a misconceived notion of overlapping courses, amount to highhandedness, abuse of discretion, and denial of legitimate opportunity. The relevant recruitment advertisements, such as the advertisement dated 09.03.2019, explicitly provide that a candidate must fulfill all relevant qualifications on or before the date of declaration of result. The petitioners had completed all necessary qualifications by the relevant dates and thus satisfy the eligibility criteria. Rejection of candidatures at the stage of document verification on non-existent grounds constitutes a violation of the advertisement terms and amounts to arbitrary action. The petitioners invoke the well-recognized doctrine of legitimate expectation. By pursuing a B.Ed. course in regular mode alongside a postgraduate degree in distance mode, in accordance with academic norms and guidelines, the petitioners had a reasonable expectation that the completion of these degrees would be recognized for eligibility purposes. Denial of candidature despite fulfillment of all qualifications constitutes a deprivation of a benefit that the petitioners were legitimately entitled to enjoy. 6. It is further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that the 16 State, as a model employer, must act fairly, transparently, and reasonably. Arbitrary disqualification violates principles of natural justice and deprives the petitioners of rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The rejection of candidature for possession of simultaneous degrees obtained in regular and distance mode is manifestly discriminatory, arbitrary, and contrary to law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned rejection orders passed by the Directorate of Public Instruction in respect of all petitioners in these connected writ petitions and direct the respondents to consider the candidatures of the petitioners for appointment to the relevant posts of Lecturers in accordance with law and applicable UGC guidelines. 7. Learned counsel for the respective respondents jointly submitted that in the batch of petitions, it is apparent from the records that certain petitioners have pursued two different degree programmes during the same academic year. This includes, inter alia, combinations such as B.Ed. and Master’s degree examinations cleared within the same academic year. Pursuit of two degrees in the same academic year falls squarely within the prohibitions set out in the applicable statutory and regulatory framework. It is submitted that the University Grants Commission, by public notice dated 15/01/2016, had issued clarifications regarding simultaneous pursuit of two degrees. However, these clarifications do not override the statutory provisions under the Chhattisgarh Universities Act, 1973, or the Ordinances framed thereunder, 17 which specifically regulate eligibility for appearing in examinations and obtaining degrees. Statutory Framework under Chhattisgarh Universities Act, 1973 Ordinance 6 (Examination – General), para 16, of the Chhattisgarh Universities Act, 1973 clearly provides that no candidate shall appear in more than one degree examination or in more than one subject for the Master’s degree (Previous or Final) in the same academic year. The Commissioner, Higher Education, Chhattisgarh, has issued clarifications in accordance with this statutory provision to ensure that the rules are uniformly applied. It is submitted that the relevant recruitment advertisements and the Chhattisgarh Official Gazette notifications (e.g., dated 05/03/2019) explicitly provide that candidates must not possess two degrees obtained simultaneously in the same academic year for appointment to teaching positions. Any possession of degrees in the same academic year violates the eligibility criteria and renders the candidates ineligible for appointment. 8. It is further submitted that reliance upon UGC notifications concerning “dual degree programmes” is misplaced in these cases. The petitioners in these matters pursued separate courses independently from recognized Indian universities. They did not pursue integrated or joint dual degree programmes as defined by UGC; therefore, such notifications have no bearing on the present matter. The document verification processes in all cases were conducted in accordance with law and the prescribed rules. Once the verification was completed and petitioners were declared 18 ineligible for appointment, the determinations were final. Representations filed by petitioners were duly considered and rejected through detailed, reasoned, and speaking orders (e.g., dated 12/08/2022, 18/08/2022, 07/10/2022). The decisions applied uniformly to all petitioners and correctly relied upon statutory provisions and regulatory guidelines. It is submitted that certain petitioners had previously filed writ petitions which were disposed of, granting liberty to make representations in light of subsequent UGC notifications. All such representations have been considered and rejected in accordance with law. The present petitions are continuations of earlier proceedings and do not introduce any new legally sustainable grounds. It is submitted that reliance on prior judgments concerning similar matters is misplaced, as those decisions did not consider the Chhattisgarh Universities Act, 1973, or Ordinance 6 (Examination – General), nor the UGC public notice of 15/01/2016. The impugned orders in these matters have been passed after proper application of law, and no new or additional grounds are being raised by the State. It is further submitted that the impugned orders rejecting representations and declaring candidates ineligible are just, proper, and in accordance with the law. The orders correctly enforce the clear eligibility criteria stated in recruitment advertisements and statutory regulations. The disqualification of candidates was rightly upheld because possession of degrees in the same academic year violates the eligibility requirements, and the verification process was properly conducted. In view of the 19 above, it is submitted that all the petitions in the present batch are devoid of merit and substance. The impugned orders rejecting candidature or representations are legally valid, just, and proper. The learned State counsel and learned counsel for other respondents, therefore pray that the petitions be dismissed at the threshold. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the record with utmost circumspection. 10. The eligibility criteria prescribed for appointment of Lecturer (English / Physics / Chemistry / Biology / Commerce/Mathematics) reads as under: “(चार) व्याख्याता कि सी मान्यता प्राप्त किश्वकिद्यालय / संस्थान से कितीय श्रेणी में किनम्नलिललि त किषयों में से कि सी ए किषय में स्नात ोत्तर / सम क्ष एं बी.एड. स.क्र. किषय किषय समूह (1) (2) (3) 1 अंग्रेजी अंग्रेजी 2 भौतित ी भौतित ी/इलेक्ट्रॉकिनक्स/एप्लाइड भौतित ी / न्यूकि9यर भौतित ी 3 रसायन रसायन / बायो े मेस्ट्री 4 जी किज्ञान नस्पतितशास्त्र / प्राणीशास्त्र / लाइफसाइन्स / जैकि ी/अनुांशिश ी (जेनेकिटक्स) / सूक्ष्मजैकि ी (माइ ोबायोलॉजी) / जैप्रोद्योकिC ी (बायोटेक्नॉलाजी) / आणकि जीकिज्ञान (मालिल ु लर बायोलॉजी) पादप ार्यिय ी (प्लान्ट 20 किफजिजयोलॉजी) तथा स्नात स्तर में प्राणीशास्त्र अथा नस्पतित शास्त्र किषय रहा हो। 5 ाशिणज्य ए ाउन्टेसी सकिहत ाशिणज्य / ास्ट ए ाउटिंटC/फाइनेन्सिन्सयल ए ाउन्टेंसी मुख्य किषय े रूप में रहा हो। 6 Cशिणत Cशिणत/एप्लाईड Cशिणत 11. The connected writ petitions arise out of the common grievance of the petitioners regarding the rejection of their candidatures for appointment to the posts of Lecturer in various subjects, including Mathematics, English, Physics, Chemistry, Commerce, and E&T Cadre, under the Directorate of Public Instruction, Chhattisgarh. 12. The petitioners, having qualified the requisite written examinations, were called for document verification as part of the recruitment process conducted pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.03.2019. This advertisement prescribed that candidates must possess a postgraduate degree in the relevant subject along with a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree. During the verification process, the petitioners were informed orally by the verification committee that their candidatures were liable to be rejected on the ground that they had obtained two degrees in the same academic year, typically a combination of a B.Ed. in regular mode and a postgraduate degree (M.A., M.Sc., or M.Com.) in open or distance learning mode. Subsequent to the verification, the respondents issued detailed orders rejecting the petitioners’ 21 candidatures, citing the same ground. The petitioners contend that their academic qualifications were obtained strictly in accordance with the University Grants Commission (UGC) norms, which expressly permit a student enrolled in a regular programme to simultaneously pursue another degree in distance/online/ODL mode. The petitioners further contend that the respondents have mechanically rejected representations filed pursuant to directions of this Court without properly appreciating the UGC norms or the fact that no express disqualification exists in the recruitment rules for candidates holding dual degrees obtained through permissible modes. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tej Prakash Pathak vs. High Court of Rajasthan, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1 has held as under : “14. In various judicial pronouncements, the law governing recruitment to public services has been colloquially termed as “the rules of the game”. The “game” is the process of selection and appointment. Courts have consistently frowned upon tinkering with the rules of the game once the recruitment process commences. This has crystallised into an oft-quoted legal phrase that “the rules of the game must not be changed midway, or after the game has been played”. Broadly speaking these rules fall in two categories. One which prescribes the eligibility criteria (i.e. essential qualifications) of the candidates seeking employment; and the other which stipulates the method and manner of making the selection 22 from amongst the eligible candidates. xxx xxx xxx 16. The law is settled that after commencement of the recruitment process the eligibility criteria is not to be altered because candidates even if eligible under the altered criteria might not apply by the last date under the belief that they are not eligible as per the advertised criteria. [Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University, (2009) 4 SCC 555 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 917] Such alteration/change, therefore, deprives a person of the guarantee of equal opportunity in matters of public employment provided by Article 16 of the Constitution. The reference order [Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2013) 4 SCC 540 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] therefore acknowledges this legal position and in clear terms accepts that “the rules of the game” cannot be changed after commencement of the recruitment process insofar as the eligibility criteria is concerned.” 14. On a careful examination of the records, pleadings, and submissions made by the parties, as also the pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds that the rejection of the candidatures of the petitioners solely on the ground that they possessed two degrees in the same academic year is arbitrary, legally unsustainable, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The recruitment advertisements, including the one dated 09.03.2019, clearly prescribe the requisite educational qualifications for the posts of Lecturer, namely a postgraduate 23 degree in the relevant subject and a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree. Nowhere in the advertisement is it expressly stipulated that a candidate would be disqualified merely because the two degrees were obtained in the same academic year. The respondents cannot, therefore, introduce a disqualification that was never contemplated at the time of issuing the advertisement, as doing so would amount to altering the eligibility criteria post hoc, which is impermissible under settled legal principles. 15. Further, the petitioners have pursued one degree in regular mode and the other in distance, open, or online mode, in compliance with the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC), including the 2012 notification and the 2022 Guidelines for Pursuing Two Academic Programmes Simultaneously. The UGC guidelines explicitly permit a student to pursue one programme in regular mode concurrently with another programme in distance or online mode. There is no statutory or regulatory bar in such cases. The respondents’ reliance on Ordinance 6 of the Chhattisgarh Universities Act, 1973, and on certain public notices issued by UGC in 2016, cannot override the express terms of the recruitment advertisement or the applicable UGC guidelines. The Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the petitioners were wrongly disqualified on a ground that is neither reflected in the advertisement nor consistent with the UGC norms. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the impugned rejection orders in all the connected writ petitions are liable to be 24 quashed. 17. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of all petitioners for appointment to the respective posts of Lecturer afresh, strictly in accordance with the terms of the recruitment advertisement, the UGC guidelines, and other applicable statutory provisions. The respondents shall complete this process of fresh consideration and pass appropriate orders within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 18. It is clarified that while considering the petitioners’ candidatures, no new disqualification other than those explicitly provided in the advertisement shall be imposed, and due regard shall be given to the fact that the petitioners pursued one degree in regular mode and another in distance/ODL/online mode in conformity with recognized academic norms. 19. The writ petitions are allowed to the above extent, No costs are awarded. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge