1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1508 of 2023 1 - Pavan Kumar S/o Ram Khilavan Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Semariya, Post Kanhera, P.S. Khansara, Tahsil And District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Education, First Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate and Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/12/2025 1. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs by way of this writ petition:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to give a chance to petitioner in above direct recruitment for the post of Lecturer (Biology). Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The case, as presented, is that the petitioner completed his B.Sc. in 2015 from Govt. Nagarjun Post Graduate Science College, Raipur, and subsequently obtained an M.Sc. (Microbiology) degree in 2017 from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, both as a regular student. He later completed his B.Ed. examination in May–June 2020, though the mark-sheet was initially awaited. In 2020, respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement for direct recruitment to the posts of Lecturers and Teachers through VYAPAM, and the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer (Biology). He was included in the supplementary list for document verification issued on 05.12.2020 and was provisionally selected subject to verification of his original documents. However, during verification on 16.12.2020, he was declared ineligible due to non-availability of the B.Ed. mark-sheet. The petitioner subsequently received his B.Ed. mark-sheet. Owing to Covid-19 and ongoing litigations, the recruitment process remained pending, and the validity of the VYAPAM result list was extended multiple times, lastly until 31.03.2023. As his candidature remained valid, the petitioner submitted a representation on 05.04.2022 seeking consideration for the post of Lecturer (Biology), but no action was taken, leading to the filing of the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is fully qualified and eligible for the post of Lecturer (Biology) in accordance with the criteria laid down in the advertisement issued by respondent 3 No. 2. It is emphasized that the petitioner possesses all requisite educational qualifications, including B.Sc., M.Sc. (Microbiology), and subsequently, the B.Ed. degree, which is the essential qualification for the said post. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner’s non-consideration solely due to the non-availability of his B.Ed. mark-sheet on the date of document verification is unjust, particularly when the petitioner had already completed the examination and later obtained the mark-sheet. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s name was duly included in the provisional selection list issued on 05.12.2020, evidencing that he had secured the necessary merit for selection to the post. Learned counsel argues that once the petitioner was provisionally selected, denial of consideration merely on account of a temporary unavailability of a document, later duly obtained, cannot defeat his lawful claim, especially when the recruitment process itself remained pending due to circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control. Learned counsel for petitioner also draws attention to the fact that the validity period of the selection list, originally limited to one year, was successively extended and remains valid up to 31.03.2023 by order of respondent No. 1. With such extension, the petitioner’s candidature continues to subsist, entitling him to fair and lawful consideration for appointment. Despite this, the petitioner’s representation dated 05.04.2022 seeking an opportunity to participate in the recruitment process has not been acted upon, which is arbitrary and violative of the petitioner’s legitimate expectations. 4. Learned State counsel, appearing for Respondents No. 1 and 2, submits at the outset that the writ petition, as framed, is wholly devoid 4 of merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is argued that all allegations made against the answering respondents are categorically denied, and the petitioner has failed to establish any enforceable legal right which warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned State counsel submits that the Directorate of Public Instructions (Respondent No. 2) had issued an advertisement for direct recruitment to the posts of Lecturers and Teachers through VYAPAM, containing specific terms and conditions governing eligibility. Attention is particularly drawn to Clause 8(7) of the “Other Instructions,” which mandates that candidates must possess the required minimum educational qualifications and all necessary certificates on or before the date of declaration of results by VYAPAM, and that any qualification obtained thereafter shall not be treated as valid for the recruitment process. Learned State counsel submits that although the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer (Biology) and appeared for document verification on 16.12.2020, he did not possess the mandatory B.Ed. mark-sheet on the relevant date. As the petitioner obtained the B.Ed. mark-sheet only after the declaration of the results, his candidature could not be considered under the explicit terms of Clause 8(7) of the advertisement. The respondents assert that the action of declaring the petitioner ineligible was strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules and cannot be faulted. It is further contended that the mere extension of the validity of the selection list does not dilute or override the essential eligibility conditions prescribed in the advertisement, nor does it create any vested right in favour of the petitioner. In view of these submissions, learned State counsel argues that the petitioner has no legal basis to seek a direction for reconsideration of his candidature, 5 and the reliefs claimed are misconceived. The impugned action, taken after due consideration of the records and in strict compliance with law, suffers from no infirmity or illegality. Therefore, the respondents submit that the writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed at the very threshold. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court on the ground that he was provisionally selected for the post of Lecturer (Biology) and, therefore, the respondent authorities ought to reconsider his candidature. However, the record clearly reflects that the petitioner’s candidature was rejected at the stage of document verification as he failed to produce the mark- sheet of his B.Ed. degree, which is an essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement. 6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not obtain the B.Ed. mark-sheet due to the Covid-19 situation cannot be accepted, as the advertisement itself mandates possession of the requisite postgraduate degree along with B.Ed. qualification on or before the date of declaration of the result. It is undisputed that the result was declared on 30.09.2019 and, on that date, the petitioner did not possess the requisite B.Ed. degree as required under Clause 7 of the advertisement. In these circumstances, the petitioner having failed to meet the mandatory eligibility criteria at the relevant time, no right accrued in his favour, nor can any direction be issued to compel the authorities to consider his candidature contrary to the explicit terms of 6 the recruitment notification. The petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to any relief claimed in this petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as being devoid of merit. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE