1 2025:CGHC:58464 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3498 of 2023 1 - Gopal Prasad Yadav S/o Hori Lal Yadav Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Dharshiv, Post Bamhanidih, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate, Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 02.12.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- 10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the advertisement dated 04.05.2023 (Annexure P-7) issued for the post of Lecturer. ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner for the post of Lecturer (Commerce) and issue appointment order in compliance to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 01.05.2023. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to extend the validity of the select list in compliance to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 01.05.2023. 10.4. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition stands squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in WPS No. 3474 of 2023 (Prem Lal Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and the connected batch of petitions decided on 20.02.2025. It is jointly prayed that the present writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the observations and findings recorded therein. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:– “13. Now, reverting back to the present writ petitions, when they are examined in the light of aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is ample clear that even after selection for the post of Assistant Teacher, the petitioners who had been succeeded in selection process 3 and whose documents were verified, did not confer a vested right to be appointed. Admittedly, the petitioners, who are aspirants for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teacher, have failed to secure marks above the cut-off marks for the post of Assistant Teacher, therefore, it cannot be recorded to have acquired an indefeasible right to be appointed on the said posts merely on the ground that their names appear in the select merit list. The respondent authorities did their best in the process of selection as there were as many as 6 rounds of counselling, however, even in the 6th round of counselling, the petitioners could not be appointed, as they could not cross the cut-off marks as prescribed the respondent authorities. The judgment cited by the petitioners is also relevant to the aspect that the person who gets placed in the select list gets no indefeasible right to be appointed even if the vacancies are available. The rider would be that the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to any selected candidate. However, in the present matters, there is a plausible reason for not appointing the petitioners to the post of Assistant Teacher as the petitioners could not compete the cut- off marks prescribed by the respondent authorities and in that view of the matter, even if posts are lying vacant, the petitioners cannot claim for appointment only on the basis of 4 their selection. Selection is altogether different thing from appointed. “14.So far as the quashment of the fresh advertisement dated 04.05.2023 is concerned, when the posts could not be fulfilled even after 6th round of counselling, the respondent authorities were having no way left except to carry forward those vacant posts for new advertisement which cannot be said to be faulted with. The respondent authorities/ State has rightly issued a fresh advertisement dated 04.05.2023 for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher while carrying forward the remaining seats which could not be fulfilled in the earlier round of recruitment process, which cannot be interfered with by this Court. 15.The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue regarding exercise of interference under extraordinary jurisdiction has held in the matter of M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. vs. Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr. Etc. Etc. reported in [2023] LiveLaw (SC) 320, which reads as under:- “18. While doing so, we are conscious of the fact that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are rather wide but are required to be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances in matters pertaining to proceedings and adjudicatory scheme qua a statute, more 5 so in commercial matters involving a lender and a borrower, when the legislature has provided for a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal.” 16.Looking into all the aforesaid aspects of the matter, this Court do not consider present to be fit cases for interfering with the acts of respondent authorities/ State, in extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17.Accordingly, the present petitions, being devoid of merits are liable to be and are hereby dismissed.” 3. Since the grievance of the petitioner is identical to the one considered in WPS No. 3474 of 2023 (Prem Lal Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), and the petitioner in the present case is also seeking the same relief, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of and in line with the aforesaid judgment. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena