1 2026:CGHC:19798 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5336 of 2021  Raut Rakhi Gopal W/o Rahul Pratik Karim, Aged About 32 Years R/o Street No. 08, Adarsh Nagar, Mowa, Raipur, Tahsil And District (Revenue And Civil) Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Department Of School Education, 1st Floor, 3rd Block, Indrawati Bhawan, Hod Building, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. The Director, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. The Joint Director Raipur Educational Division Raipur Pension Bada, School Education Board, Complex 1st Floor, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.04 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the order dated (ANNEXURE-P/1) issued by the respondent no.02. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.04.30 13:27:35 +0530 2 pleased to pass an appropriate writ or direction against the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner candidature as a eligible candidate for the post of Teacher (English subject E category) 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to the petitioner.” 2. Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that an advertisement was issued by the respondent No. 2 on 09.03.2019 to fill up various posts in School Education Department including post of English Teacher. He would contend that the petitioner submitted her application form and participated in the examination. He would submit that merit list was published on 21.11.2019 and a letter was sent by respondent No. 2, wherein, the petitioner was declared successful and called for document verification. He would contend that the petitioner participated in the counseling and verification of documents, and thereafter, letter was issued in favour of petitioner, wherein, it was stated that an offer of appointment would be issued in favour of the petitioner. He would contend that surprisingly the Joint Director, Education Department vide order dated 24.02.2021 rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that she did not possess required qualification for English Teacher. He would refer departmental meeting convened on 10.02.2021, wherein, it is stated that if a candidate possesses graduation degree with D.Ed. and TET, he/she would not be declared ineligible. He would contend that the petitioner is having Bachelor of Arts degree, and therefore, the respondent authorities should have considered the candidature of the petitioner. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. 3 Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha would submit that the required qualification for Teacher(English) is English Literature as one of the subjects at graduation level. He would contend that as English in Foundation course has been pursued by the petitioner at graduation level, therefore, her candidature was rejected. He would submit that the decision has been taken by the respondent authorities strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules and conditions prescribed in the advertisement. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Perusal of B.A. – III mark-sheet of the petitioner would reveal that English Literature was not one of the subjects at graduation level rather Foundation Course (English) was one of the subjects. The required qualification for Teacher (English) was graduation with English Literature. The petitioner was lacking required eligibility criteria; therefore, her candidature was rejected by the respondent authorities. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was lacking eligibility criteria for post of Teacher (English); therefore, her candidature was rejected, thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant