1 2025:CGHC:51770 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4267 of 2022 1 - Tikeshwar S/o Pratap Singh Sonwani Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Sonwani Niwas, Ambedkar Ward, Amapara, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate, Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Education Division, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) & WPS No. 4277 of 2022 1 - Yogesh Kumar S/o Chunni Lal, Aged About 40 Years R/o Daganiyad, Balod, District : Balod, 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 2 - Director, Directorate, Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer, Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri CJK Rao, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy.G.A. and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 16/10/2025 Since identical issue is involved in the above two writ petitions, they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. Facts of the case which emerges from the writ petition is that the petitioner in WPS No.4267/22 made an application for appointment on the post of Teacher (English) whereas petitioner in WPS No.4277/22 made application for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Science) in lieu of the advertisement issued by the respondent in the year 2019. The petitioners in both the petitions have cleared the written examination and they were placed in the merit list also and they were called for the document verification / counseling by the respondents, however, their candidature was rejected on the ground that the petitioners were not holding minimum qualification for appointment on such post i.e. Teachers Eligibility Test/D.Ed/B.ed. Therefore, challenging the same, these writ petitions have been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are ex- service men. According to M.P. Ex-service Man (Reservation of Vacancies in the State Civil Services and Posts Class III and Class IV) Rules, 1985 (for short ‘Rules of 1985’) prescribed relaxation clause in Rule 6 for the Ex-Service Man. Therefore, rejection of candidature of the petitioners is bad in law, the impugned orders (Annexure P/1) in both the petitions may be set aside and the petitioners may be appointed on the posts they have applied for. 3 4. Opposing the above submission, learned panel lawyers appearing for the State submit that service conditions of Teachers/Assistant Teachers are governed by CG School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2009 (for short ‘Rules of 2009) and Rule 8 (II) of the Rules of 2019 provides for educational qualification and experience for appointment on such post and for that purpose, the petitioner should have minimum qualification. Minimum qualification is quoted herein below – “i) Graduation and 2 years Diploma in Elementary Education (by Whatever name known) Or Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) Or Graduation with at least 45% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) in accordance with the NCTE recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations, issued from time to time in this regard. Or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.EI. Ed.) Or Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year B.A./B.Sc. Ed. Or B.A. Ed/B.Sc.Ed. Or Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1 year B.Ed. (Special Education) And ii) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.” They submit that as the petitioners were not holding minimum qualification and they cannot take shelter of the Rules of 1985, therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 4 6. There is no dispute to the fact that as per minimum qualification prescribed in Rule 8 (II) of the Rules of 2019, the petitioners ought to have TET/ B.Ed/D.Ed. Degree. The petitioners does not hold such qualification. The purpose of having minimum qualification is in consonance of the NCTE guidelines from time to time. A person not qualified and having minimum qualification of TET for teaching the students cannot be permitted to be appointed on such post. The reliance on the Rules of 1985 is misconceived. Therefore, these petitions have no merits. They are liable to be and are accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.10.17 18:05:26 +0530