1 2025:CGHC:61009 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5476 of 2023 1 - Lalit Kumar Koshale S/o Bajelal Koshaley Aged About 62 Years Retired Lecturer At Govt. Higher Secondary School Kona, Block And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, Resident Of Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Ward No. 22, Behind Sahara Indian Office Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantrlaya New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Department Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Mungeli, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer Mungeli, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Mirza Hafeez Baig, Advocate For State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 15/12/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire record from the respondents. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and issue a writ by quashing impugned merit list issued by the respondent no. 4 (Annexure P-1) and decision of claim /objection of the petitioner dated 06.06.2023 (Annexure P-2) and further to direct the respondent authorities to prepare fresh merit list by complying the clause- 7 (ii) of the circular dated 31.12.2012 of the State Govt., in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that respondent No. 4 issued an advertisement dated 24.05.2023 inviting applications for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) in Navin Swami Atmanand Excellent English Medium School, Motimpur, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner, who is a retired Lecturer and who successfully completed his service and retired on 28.02.2023, applied online for the said post, being fully eligible inasmuch as he possesses the requisite qualification of M.A. in Hindi and fulfills all the prescribed eligibility conditions. The 3 petitioner duly submitted his online application along with the necessary documents; however, the respondent authorities disqualified him solely on the ground that he had crossed the age of 62 years. Aggrieved by the said action, which is alleged to be contrary to Clause 7(ii) of the circular dated 31.12.2012, as amended on 10.07.2019, the petitioner submitted a representation before respondent Nos. 3 and 4, but no action was taken thereon and the recruitment process for the said post is being continued. Left with no alternative efficacious remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned merit list issued by respondent No. 4 is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the governing circulars and rules, inasmuch as the petitioner has been disqualified on the ground of overage despite being otherwise fully eligible. It is contended that the petitioner had applied for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) in two districts, namely Mungeli and Bilaspur, and while he was found qualified in District Bilaspur, he was disqualified in District Mungeli on the very same ground of age, which reflects arbitrariness and non-application of mind on the part of the respondent authorities. Learned counsel further submits that as per Clause 7(ii) of the circular dated 31.12.2012, as amended on 10.07.2019, retired Government servants are eligible for engagement on contract basis for a period of ten years or up to the age of 70 years, and therefore, the petitioner could not have been disqualified merely on the ground 4 of being over 62 years of age. It is also pointed out that the advertisement itself stipulates that the recruitment process would be governed by the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2012 and the amended circular dated 10.07.2019, which have been completely ignored by the respondents. It is further submitted that the representations made by the petitioner before respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have not been considered till date. In view of the aforesaid facts and without pressing the matter on merits at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner may be granted liberty to submit an appropriate application/representation raising all his grievances before the competent authorities, and the concerned authorities may be directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law, within a reasonable time. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions, submits that while the State disputes the merits of the claims raised by the petitioner, it has no objection if, at this stage, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh representation/application before the competent authority raising his grievances. Learned State counsel further submits that in the event such a representation is filed, the concerned authority may be directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law and the applicable rules/circulars, within a reasonable time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused 5 the pleadings and documents placed on record with due care. 6. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the nature of controversy involved, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is relegated to the remedy of submitting a fresh application/representation before the competent authority. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application/representation before the concerned competent authority, raising all his grievances, along with relevant documents, within a period of two weeks from today. Upon such application/representation being filed, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the same, strictly in accordance with law and the applicable rules/circulars, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a further period of 45 days thereafter. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the rival contentions, and all issues are left open to be considered by the competent authority. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE