1 2025:CGHC:59547 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2925 of 2023 1 - Ku. Prachee Sahu D/o Shri Sheetal Prasad Sahu Aged About 37 Years Assistant Teacher (L.B.), Loharsi (Junior) Block Patan, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Education Division Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Block Education Officer Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. C. J. K. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/12/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to consider the candidature of petitioner for promotion on the post Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 of Teacher (Mathematics) subject on the basis of Bachelor Degree in Engineering. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authorities to consider the Bachelor of Engineering degree holders as eligible for the post of Teacher (Mathematics). 6 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s)/ writ(s), order(s) in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts & circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Science) on 08.10.2008, and his services were subsequently regularized on 30.01.2013. The petitioner is an Engineering Graduate, and his qualification has been duly placed on record. In accordance with the State Government’s policy dated 30.06.2018, the petitioner’s services were absorbed into the Education Department vide order dated 10.08.2018. Although the petitioner’s name was initially included in the gradation list published by the Department, it was later omitted without justification. Upon raising an objection, the petitioner was informed that his candidature for promotion to the post of Teacher (Maths) could not be considered solely on the ground that he holds an engineering degree. Despite the publication of the counseling schedule and list of eligible candidates for promotion on 06.04.2023, the petitioner’s name was again excluded. The issue involved stands settled by the decision of this Court in WPS No. 3789/2019, decided on 17.11.2020, wherein it has been held that engineering graduates cannot be debarred from teaching posts in the School Education Department or the Tribal Department. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner possesses the requisite academic qualification for consideration to the post of Teacher (Maths), having completed her Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) with Mathematics as a core subject. It is argued that under the Chhattisgarh School Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Recruitment Rules, 2019, a candidate holding a graduate degree with Mathematics as a subject is fully eligible for appointment or promotion to the post of Teacher (Maths). Reliance is placed on the relevant part of the Schedule to the 2019 Rules to demonstrate that the qualification prescribed is not restricted to traditional B.Sc. degrees alone, but extends to any graduate degree that includes Mathematics as a subject. It is further submitted that since the petitioner’s Engineering degree includes Mathematics, she squarely fulfills the statutory criteria and cannot be denied consideration for promotion on the arbitrary ground that she is an Engineering Graduate. Learned counsel emphasizes that the issue is no longer res integra, as this Court in WPS No. 3789/2019, decided on 17.11.2020, has categorically held that Engineering Graduates cannot be excluded or debarred from the teaching profession either in the School Education Department or in the Tribal Department solely on the basis of their qualification being an Engineering degree. Therefore, the impugned action of excluding the petitioner from consideration for promotion is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the binding precedent as well as the statutory rules. It is thus prayed that the petitioner be held eligible and be considered for promotion to the post of Teacher (Maths). 4. Learned State counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit. It is contended that although the 4 petitioner possesses a Bachelor of Engineering degree in which Mathematics is one of the subjects, such qualification does not satisfy the specific eligibility criteria prescribed under the Chhattisgarh School Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Recruitment Rules, 2019 for promotion to the post of Teacher (Mathematics). It is emphasized that the NCTE, being the statutory authority empowered under Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, has prescribed the minimum academic and professional qualifications for the post of a teacher, and the petitioner does not fulfill these essential requirements. The relevant schedule under the Rules of 2019 clearly stipulates that for the subject of Mathematics, a candidate must hold a bachelor’s degree with Mathematics along with specific companion subjects such as Physics, Chemistry, Electronics, Computer Science, Statistics, Military Science, or Groundnut Science. However, the petitioner’s mark-sheets reveal that although Mathematics appears as a subject in the early semesters of her engineering course, it is not carried through to the final semester, and thus her degree cannot be treated as equivalent to a graduation in Mathematics. Therefore, the petitioner does not possess the requisite academic qualification for promotion. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in WPS No. 844/2021 (Archana v. State of Chhattisgarh), wherein the candidature of the petitioner therein was rejected as she did not have the prescribed subject in her final-year graduation. Applying the same principle, the petitioner herein is also ineligible. With regard to the order dated 17.11.2020 passed in WPS No. 3789/2019, it is submitted that the said decision pertains to consideration for appointment to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) 5 subject to eligibility, and does not relax or override the specific qualifications prescribed under the 2019 Rules for promotion. As the petitioner does not meet the statutory criteria, her exclusion from the gradation list is fully justified and suffers from no illegality. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 6. The foundational facts are undisputed: the petitioner is an Engineering Graduate, duly appointed as Assistant Teacher (Science) in 2008 and regularized in 2013; she was absorbed into the Education Department in 2018 under the State policy dated 30.06.2018; her name was initially included in the gradation list but was subsequently omitted solely on the ground that her Bachelor of Engineering qualification is not acceptable for promotion to the post of Teacher (Mathematics). 7. The narrow issue requiring adjudication is whether a Bachelor of Engineering degree containing Mathematics as a core subject satisfies the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Chhattisgarh School Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Recruitment Rules, 2019 for promotion to the post of Teacher (Maths). 8. A perusal of the Schedule to the 2019 Rules reveals that the essential academic qualification for the post of Teacher (Mathematics) is a graduate degree with Mathematics as a subject, alongside specified allied subjects. The Rule does not confine eligibility to any particular stream such as B.Sc. (Maths) alone; rather, it prescribes a subject- centric criterion. It is not disputed that the petitioner’s Bachelor of 6 Engineering program included Mathematics as a core subject, which is duly reflected in her academic records. The State’s objection that Mathematics is not reflected in the final semester and therefore the degree should not be treated as "graduate with Mathematics" is untenable, as neither the Rules of 2019 nor any NCTE norm requires the subject to be studied in the final semester specifically or mandates a particular pattern of study across semesters. What is required is possession of a graduation in which Mathematics forms a substantive component, a requirement the petitioner satisfies. The contention of the State that the NCTE norms exclude Engineering Graduates from eligibility is misplaced. No such restriction is shown to exist. More importantly, this Court, in WPS No. 3789/2019 decided on 17.11.2020, has already settled the issue by holding that Engineering Graduates cannot be debarred from teaching posts in the School Education Department or the Tribal Department merely because their degree is in Engineering. The said judgment squarely covers the controversy and binds the respondents. The attempt to distinguish the said judgment on the ground that it pertained to recruitment and not promotion is without substance, as eligibility criteria remain the same for both processes under the 2019 Rules. Once the petitioner is statutorily eligible, she cannot be excluded from consideration on artificial or non-statutory grounds. The reliance placed by the State on WPS No. 844/2021 (Archana v. State of Chhattisgarh) is misplaced, as that case turned on its own factual matrix where the candidate did not have Mathematics at all as a subject in graduation. The present case stands on a different footing since the petitioner has demonstrably studied Mathematics as part of her Engineering degree. The ratio of that case, therefore, does 7 not apply. The omission of the petitioner’s name from the gradation list and refusal to consider her candidature for promotion is thus arbitrary, contrary to the Rules of 2019, and in direct conflict with the binding judgment of this Court in WPS No. 3789/2019. The action of the respondents is unsustainable in law. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 10. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Teacher (Mathematics) on the basis of her Bachelor of Engineering degree. The respondents shall accordingly restore her name in the gradation list and consider her case for promotion in the next counseling/promotion process, strictly in accordance with law. Necessary consequential benefits shall also follow. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE