1 2025:CGHC:60115 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4617 of 2021 1 - Jyoti Rai W/o Chitrangad Lal Rai (D/o Saheb Ram Bandey) Aged About 41 Years R/o Village And Post Mohara, Tahsil Gurur District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction Chhattisgarh Raipur Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 10.12.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s); “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order dated 13/8/21 (Annexure P-1) and direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher (English) T cadre and appoint the petitioner accordingly, as per order of merit, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.12.15 16:50:47 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents issued an advertisement for the appointment of Teachers in various subjects. The petitioner applied for the post of Teacher (English) under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category. The petitioner was found successful and called for document verification. Initially, document verification was scheduled for 21.01.2021. Upon verification of the petitioner’s documents and she was found to be in order and an offer of appointment was issued which the petitioner accepted. It was further observed that the appointment letter would be issued once the schools which had been closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic reopened. However, later vide the impugned communication dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner’s candidature was rejected on the grounds that the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner was not issued by a competent authority, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO). The petitioner submits that at the time of document verification, the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar was submitted which is a competent authority and the documents were found in order at that time. Furthermore, the petitioner has since obtained the permanent caste certificate which is now appended to the covering memo. Therefore, he seeks the setting aside of the impugned order and the grant of the relief claimed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State opposes the submissions and submits that the advertisement clearly stipulated a condition that all necessary documents must be submitted at the time of document verification. This included ensuring that candidates possessed the minimum academic qualifications and other certificates before the declaration of the result by the examining agency. The advertisement also specifically mentioned that certificates submitted after the declaration of the result would not be considered. She further submits that Clause 8 of the advertisement requires 3 candidates to submit a permanent caste certificate issued by the competent authority in order to avail the benefits of age relaxation and reservation. Since the petitioner failed to submit the permanent caste certificate from the competent authority (i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer), the benefit of age relaxation/reservation could not be extended to the petitioner and the impugned order may not be interfered with by this Court. 4. After giving patient hearing to the learned counsel for both parties, the records of the case have been thoroughly examined. 5. It is undisputed that the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher (English) under the SC category. The caste certificate submitted by the petitioner appears to have been issued by the Tahsildar sometime in the year 1994. Upon perusal of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement, it is evident that all the necessary qualifications and certificates including the permanent caste certificate were required to be obtained by the candidates on or before the date of declaration of the result by the examining authority. The permanent caste certificate must be issued by a competent authority otherwise the benefits of age relaxation or reservation would not be granted. 6. For ease of reference, paragraphs 7 and 8 of the advertisement are reproduced below: “(7) अभ्यቕኍ को आवश्यको न्य नतम शै्ቌणिको अ्ቩत एव अन्य ्ቚम प्ቔ व्यपम ቛኋरा परा!्ቌ- फल जारा! ्ቩन% को& णितथिቕኍ अቕኍव उसको% प व ्ቚ्቎ कोरान अणिनवय ्ቩ। व्यपम ቛኋरा परा!्ቌ-फल जारा! ्ቩन% को& णितथिቕኍ को% पश्चात- ्ቚ्቎ अ्ቩत ्ቚम प्ቔ मन्य न्ቩ. ्ቩ/गे%। (8) अभ्यቕኍ को स्ቌम ्ቚथि1कोरा! ቛኋरा जारा! स्ቕኍई जाणित ्ቚम प्ቔ ्ቚस्त4त कोरान ्ቩगे, अन्यቕኍ णिवሺኋपन को% त्ቩत दणिशैत छू ट (आय4/आरा्ቌ) को लभ ्ቚ्቎ न्ቩ. ्ቩगे।” 7. Although the caste certificate issued by the Naib Tahsildar was submitted by the petitioner, the conditions mentioned in the advertisement clearly specify that a 4 permanent caste certificate issued by a competent authority (i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer) was required. The petitioner has since obtained the permanent caste certificate from the SDO. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in Clauses 7 and 8 of the advertisement at the time of document verification. As a result, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of reservation or age relaxation, and this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 8. In view of the above, and in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sakshi Arha Vs. The Rajasthan High Court and ors. reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 405, this writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari