1 2025:CGHC:12707 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 836 of 2022 Jugjeet Kour Bhatia W/o Satendra Pal Singh Wadhwa Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Lig 07, Deendayal Awas Narayanpur, Tehsil And District - Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate of Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director Department of Education, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, Advocate For Respondents /State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 17.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Satish Gupta, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.03.27 18:51:22 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the inaction on the respondent authorities by which they have held the petitioner to be ineligible for appointment to the post of Teacher (English) E-Cadre. The petitioner has successfully participated in the examination and after being successful, she has been called for verification of the documents. The petitioner has been eligible on the ground that she has acquired graduation after passing B.Ed. decree whereas in the advertisement, there is no such condition was prescribed. The petitioner completed her earlier graduation in the year 1999 and thereafter, she has completed B.Ed. in the year 2011. Subsequently, she has acquired graduation in English Literature in the year 2015, as such the ground of rejection is not in accordance with law. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly issue an appropriate writ in the quash Annexure P/1 and direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher (English) with all consequential benefit, in the interest of justice. 3 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other reliefs or pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice. The petitioner may also kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 4. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that candidature of the petitioner can not be rejected on the post of post of Teacher (English) E-Cadre only on the ground she has obtained B.Ed. decree prior to her graduation degree in English Literature. The petitioner was earlier graduated in the year 1999 and thereafter, she has completed his B.Ed. degree in the year 2011. It is further case of the petitioner that when an advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of Teacher (English) E-Cadre, the petitioner has applied for the same and she was also successful in every aspect as she has completed the required criteria as laid down by the authorities. However, during the course of verification of the documents, her candidature has been rejected on the ground that she has obtained B.Ed. decree prior to his graduation in English Literature, as such she is not eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher (English) E-Cadre. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has completed her first graduation in the Bachelor of Commerce 4 (B.Com.) in the year 1999 from Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur and thereafter in the year 2011, she did Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur. Subsequently, the petitioner did her second graduation as Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) with English Literature in the year 2015 from the MATS University. It is thus submitted that the petitioner is fully eligible for the post of Teacher (English) E-Cadre and the reason assigned for rejection of her candidature by the order impugned is misconceived and liable to be thrown out, the petition may be allowed and the relief claimed by the petitioner may be granted. It has been contended that on the same grounds, two candidate namely Aman Swarnkar and Manju Kesery was found eligible and they were appointed for the respect posts, however, petitioner has been discriminated, which is not in accordance with law. Reliance has been placed upon the orders rendered by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the matters of Arvind Kumar Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in Writ Petition (S) No.1643/2022 decided on 26.07.2024 and Smt. Pushpa Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in Writ Petition (S) No.847/2021 decided on 17.09.2024 to buttress his submissions. 6. On the other hand, supporting the order impugned to be just and proper counsel appearing for the State submits that thought the petitioner did her graduation twice yet since she applied for appointment of Teacher (English) E-Cadre, he should have 5 completed her graduation in English Literature subject before B.Ed. degree obtained in the year 1999. He further submits that the decision of the appointing authority would be final to ascertain the eligibility criteria of the petitioner, and therefore, the impugned order rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is fully justified. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusal the documents annexed with the writ petition. 8. From the perusal of the record, it seems that the petitioner has graduated in two subjects, i.e. in first round, she has graduated in B.Com. in the year 1999 and thereafter she has completed his B.Ed. degree in the year 2011. Subsequently, she has completed her graduation in B.A. including the subject English Literature in the year 2015 and hence, she is eligible for the post of Teacher (English) E-Cadre. The reason for denial that the petitioner has obtained graduation before B.Ed. degree is totally misconceived. It will not make any difference if the petitioner has obtained B.Ed. degree after graduating in some other subject and thereafter, she has completed her graduation in English Literature subject. It has been further reflected that that case of similarly persons have been considered and they have been given appointment order, as such, no discrimination can be made in respect of the petitioner also. 9. Rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is on the ground that she has done his graduation twice. Advertisement does not reflect 6 whether a person who has done graduation twice is not entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of Teacher (English). Learned State counsel has tried to persuade this Court that the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher (English) and until and unless, she had done her graduation in English subject before B.Ed. degree. This submission does not seems to be proper or justified. Rejection is just on the ground that she has done her graduation twice and therefore, the State cannot go beyond the reason assigned while passing the impugned order by improving its case during the course of argument in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, reported in (1978) 1SCC 405. 10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.01.2022 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is hereby set aide. The respondents are directed to issue appointment order on the post of Teacher (English) E-Cadre in favour of the petitioner, if there is no any other impediment. This exercise shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh