NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1612 of 2021 1 - Ravikant Sahu, S/o Satya Prakash Sahu, aged about 31 Years, R/o Mohba Bazar, Amanaka, Thana Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate, Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., 3 - Joint Director Education Division, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 1782 of 2021 1 - Amar Kiran Chandrawanshi, S/o Durga Prasad Chandrawanshi, aged about 28 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Mathpara, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate, Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director, Education Division, Durg, District Durg. --- Respondents For Petitioners : Shri C.J.K. Rao, Advocate For Respondents : Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L. ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.12.22 12:20:04 +0530 -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 03/12/2025 1. Since identical issue is involved in these petitions, they are being heard and decided by this common order. For sake of convenience WPS No.1612/2021 is taken as lead case. 2. Following relief has been claimed in this writ petition:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 22.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 3. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for the post of Teacher (Biology). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit and appropriate. 3. Fact of the case which emerges from the pleadings are that the petitioners applied for the post of Teacher (Biology) in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondent authorities. That the petitioner stood in merit position, accordingly, the petitioner called for counseling. That the petitioners are having the degree of Bachelor in Pharmacy along-with B.Ed. and T.E.T. That vide order dated 22.01.2021, the petitioner has been declared ineligible on the ground that the petitioner is not having requisite subject in his graduation. It is further pleaded that the petitioners are having the degree of Bachelor in Pharmacy with the subject Chemistry, Anatomy and Physiology which comes under Zoology. That accordingly the petitioner is qualified for the above post of Teacher (Biology). That even in the Recruitment Rules 2019 it is provided that for the post of Teacher (Biology) two subjects from Chemistry, Botany, Zoology, Military Science and Geophysics are at graduate level. That the petitioners is having the requisite qualification of B.Ed. and T.E.T. also inspite of that the petitioners has been declared -3- ineligible. That even in the Rules 2013, the degree of Pharmacy has been considered for the purpose of Teacher (Science). Hence this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a recruitment drive was carried out by the respondent No. 2 for appointment on the various post of Lecturer and Teacher (E-Cadre) in different subjects. The petitioners submitted their application for appointed on the post of Teachers (E-Cadre) in Biology subject. According to the conditions prescribed in the advertisement, the applicant should have Graduation with at least two subjects of Chemistry, Botany, Zoology, Military Science and Geology. The petitioners are holding graduation in B-Pharma. Apart from this, the petitioner are have passed B.Ed. and T.E.T examination. He submits that initially the Chhattisgarh Shikshak (Nagari Nikaya) Samvarg (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 (for short ‘rules of 2013’) (Annexure P/4) were governing the service conditions of the Teachers and in the Municipal Corporation /Council. According to the it, Graduate in B-Pharma were also eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher. Subsequently, the Rules were amended and new rule namely Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 (for short ‘Rules of 2019’) (Annexure P/5) was enacted and the services of the Teachers are governed by Rules of 2019. He submits that petitioners considering himself to be eligible, made the application in that recruitment process and also cleared the written examination, however, at the stage of documents verification, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected vide order 22/01/2021 (Annexure P/1), indicating therein that he is not graduate in the required subject. He submits that the petitioner is a Graduate in Pharma and the mark-sheet would categorically indicate that he has studied Pharmaceutical Chemistry-1 and Pharmaceutical Chemistry-2. He submits that petitioner’s has obtained B.Ed. Decree and also cleared the -4- T.E.T. examination, thus he is eligible to be appointed on the post of Teacher and the rejection of their candidature vide impugned communication is bad in law. He further submits that as rules of 2013 provides that B-Pharma graduates is also eligible and so many other persons having B-Bharma Degree is also imparting Education. Therefore, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered by the respondents as eligible candidates as indicated above. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in case of Arun Kumar Navgwal & Ors. Vs. State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors. in WPS 3789/2019 order dated 17/11/2020. 5. Per contra learned counsel for the State submits that the advertisement unmistakable terms specify that in order to be appointed on the post of Teacher (Biology), the candidate should have at least two subjects in their Graduation which included Chemistry, Botany, Zoology, Military Science and Geophysics. The petitioner is a Pharmaceutical Graduates and two subjects have been mentioned in the advertisement have not been studied by the petitioner. The Court’s normally should not enter into the arena of drawing equivalence between the different degrees issued and it should be left to the domain of experts. He further submits that once the petitioner has participated in the recruitment process now cannot challenged the same stating that they are eligible candidates. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Unnikrishnan CV & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2023) 18 SCC 546. Thus, these writ petitions have no merit and liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with rapt attention. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner made an application in lieu of advertisement (Annexure P/2) for appointment in the post of ‘Teacher’. The relevant qualification which a candidate has to obtained has been -5- specifically mentioned in the advertisement. As the petitioner applied for appointment for Teacher (Biology), the condition precedent is that he should have studied at least two subjects at the Graduation Level which has already been stated above. 8. This is also is not in dispute, the petitioners are Pharma Graduate obtained Degree of B-Pharmacy. Perusal of their mark-sheet appended with the writ petition clearly indicates that they have studied Pharmaceutical Chemistry-1; Pharmaceutical Chemistry-2 and Pharmaceutical - Micro-Biology. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to convince this Court that as the petitioner has studied Pharmaceutical Chemistry and Pharmaceutical – Micro-Biology. It is peri-materia subjects to the subjects mentioned in the advertisement and the petitioners are eligible for consideration for the appointment on the post of Teacher. Now the question which is posed before this Court as to whether this Court would enter into arena to draw an equivalence between the subjects which has been read by the petitioners and the subjects which has been mentioned in the advertisement. The law with this regard is well settled that the Court normally should not enter into the venture of drawing the equivalence of the degree and should be left in the domain of the expert bodies. Hon’ble Supreme in the case of Unnikrishnan CV & Ors. (Supra) relying into various authorities has quoted in paragraphs 13 and 14 as under: “13. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal reported in (2009) 1 SCC 610 this Court has reiterated that equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. Dealing specifically -6- with whether a distance education course was equivalent to the degree of MA (English) of the appellant university therein, the Court held that no material had been produced before it to show that the distance education course had been recognized as such. 14. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad reported in (2019) 2 SCC 604, it was held that the e State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. (emphasis supplied) Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine.” 9. Another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on almost similar factual background has been rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Shifana P.S. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in (2024) 8 SCCC 309 in paragraph 13 & 14 is quoted below:- “13.This Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sk. Imtiyaz Ahmad (2019) 2 SCC 404 held judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the -7- equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Therefore, the equivalence of a qualification is not matter that can be determined in the exercise of the power of judicial review, Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. 14.In Unnikrishnan CV v. Union of India reported in (2023) 18 SCC 54, a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while relying upon the earlier judgment in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwals reported in (2009) 1 SCC 610 held that equivalence is a technical academic matter it cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the University relating to equivalence should be by specific order or resolution duly published. 10. Thus, this Court on the given facts and circumstances of the case is unable to draw and equivalence with the degree which has been held by the petitioner with subjects which has been mentioned in the advertisement. Reliance placed in the case of Arun Kumar Navgwal & Ors. (Supra) in the opinion of this Court, does not help the case in any manner as distinguishable of the facts. In that case the candidates were holding B.E. degree. Even otherwise in light of authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the contention raised by the petitioners does not hold water and is liable to be rejected. 11. Consequently, these writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish