1 2025:CGHC:8182 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 664 of 2025 1 - Sanskar Jaiswal S/o Mr. Ravishankar Jaiswal Aged About 23 Years R/o Vill.- Tiwarta, Block- Pali, Dist.- Korba, C.G. 2 - Dipali Singh D/o Mr. Raju Ranjan Singh Aged About 22 Years R/o Vill.- Risda, Post- Risda, Dist.- Bilaspur, C.G. 3 - Mona Jaiswal D/o Mr. Dev Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 32 Years R/o Vill.- Nawagaon Salka Kargi Road Kota, Dist.- Bilaspur, C.G. 4 - Rupali Dixena D/o Mr. Ghanshyam Prasad Aged About 28 Years R/o Vill.- Nawagaon Salka Kargi Road Kota, Dist.- Bilaspur, C.G. 5 - Adarsh Dewangan S/o Mr. Sanjay Dewangan Aged About 23 Years R/o Sardar Patel Ward, Malai Ghat, Mungeli, District Mungeli, C.G. 6 - Sushama Patel D/o Mr. Lalit Patel Aged About 23 Years R/o Gram- Lagra, Post- Mopka, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, C.G. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.02.17 22:42:49 +0530 2 7 - Neha Sahu D/o Mr. Radhe Shyam Sahu Aged About 18 Years R/o Bichpara Gram Hardidih, Post- Urtum, Dist.- Bilaspur, C.G. 8 - Sanskriti Jaiswal D/o Mr. Ravishankar Jaiswal Aged About 30 Years R/o Vill.- Tiwarta, Block- Pali, Dist.- Korba, C.G. 9 - Lakshmananee Jangde D/o Mr. Hariram Jangde Aged About 31 Years R/o - Apj Abdul Kalam Risda Road Baloda Bazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, C.G. 10 - Sana Parveen D/o Mr. Md Aslam Aged About 24 Years Address- Dev Nagar Ghuru Road Tifra Bilaspur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya- Raipur, 492002, C.G. 2 - State Council Of Edcuational Research And Training, Chhattisgarh Through Its Director, B T I Ground, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, 492002, C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Kshitij Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General along with Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer. 3 Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 17.02.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a direction towards the respondent authority to conduct the counseling process for the petitioners for D.El.Ed. Course against the vacant seats and further seeking a direction to grant admission to the said course. 2. (a) The main contention of the petitioners is that they intended to pursue D.El.Ed course and for which they appeared in the entrance examination in which they succeeded; thereafter the respondent authorities conducted the counseling for the first and second round. On completion of the said counseling process, several seats were lying vacant but the authorities failed to issue the waiting list, though the said process of issuance of waiting list was conducted for the academic year 2022-23 and 2023-24. Further contention of the petitioner is that refusal of admission is totally unjust and arbitrary because vacant seats are available but allotment of candidates have not been made, therefore, a prayer is made by the petitioners to accord admission in the College against the vacant seat. (b) According to the petitioners, action of the respondents in not providing admission against the vacant seats is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the right of the petitioners to education guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioners pleaded that only first round and second round counseling is conducted by the respondent for filling of the seats for admission in the subject course and, even if large number of seats are still 4 vacant and several candidates including the petitioners are available for admission, but the respondents failed to issue the waiting list in respect of vacant seats available for admission. 3. This Court by order dated 06.02.2025 passed an order directing the Director, State Council of Education Research and Training to file an afÏdavit within 7 days stating as to why the provision of wait list has been waived in the Academic year 2024-25 though the same was being provided in the Academic years 2022-23 & 2023-24. It has further been directed that the Director shall also intimate this Court that when the last counseling was concluded in the present academic session. 4. In compliance of the said order, the Director filed an afÏdavit before this Court on 13.02.2025 stating that though in the Academic year 2022-23 and 2023-24 waiting lists were published, however in respect of said waiting list several complaints have been made alleging that certain irregularities have been committed in the College level counseling for which inquiries have been conducted. Thus, in the present case the waiting list has not been published. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents as also the afÏdavits filed by the Director, State Council of Education Research and Training. 6. Upon perusal of the aforesaid documents, it is apparent that after the first round and second round counseling is undertaken for filling up the seats, several seats remained unfilled and despite the said fact the waiting list has not been published on the ground that in the previous years there were several complaints in the counseling 5 done against the waiting list. In the opinion of this Court, the State should not take a plea that because of several complaints about irregularities committed in respect of waiting list of previous years, they have waived preparation of wating list in the current year. In fact, the State is duty bound to take necessary steps to prevent such illegalities or irregularities, if the complaints were made in the previous years. The welfare State is duty bound to perform its bounden duty to protect the fundamental right of the citizens. In the case at hand, after due preparation of studies, large number of candidates appeared in the competitive examination for admission in D.El.Ed. Course with expectation that opportunity will be granted for admission, but even though large number of seats remained vacant and this fact is within the knowledge of the authorities, despite that, without any cogent reason in a very casual manner decision has been taken by the authorities not to publish the waiting list. 7. During the course of the arguments, it is informed that the total working days for the session is 200 days and hence at this juncture it is not possible to give admission to the students. 8. From the pleadings and the documents appended with the petition and the reply of the State, it is manifest that the last date of the counseling was 24.12.2024 and 200 actual working days is going to be completed in the month of September 2025. Thus, after publication of the waiting list and on the basis of admission of candidates if the extra classes are conducted the newly admitted candidates may complete their session within the stipulated period. 6 Thus, denial of admission purely on technical grounds is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the writ petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to publish the waiting list, in respect of all the eligible candidates, including the petitioners, if they are so eligible, within a fortnight. Thereafter, the authorities shall fix the date of counseling without delay and grant opportunity to all the successful candidates who are in merit and not able to get admission in the first and second round counseling for any reason. 10. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib