1 / 4 2026:CGHC:19820 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3689 of 2026 Vinayak Gupta S/o Rajesh Prasad Gupta Aged About 36 Years R/o Borodipa, Near Gupta Medical At Pussor (N.P.), Post Pussor, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Vikas Bhawan, North Block, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director Panchayat Directorate, Vikas Bhawan, North Block, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 6 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Sakshi Bajpai, P.L. HON'BLE SHRI PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, JUDGE ORDER ON BOARD 29.04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner to grant appointment to the petitioner to the post of Lecturer 2 / 4 (Panchayat) in light of the observation made by this Hon'ble court in WPS 6861/2018 dated 19.07.2019. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass such further orders or directions as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Case of the petitioner is that the Zila Panchayat, Raigarh issued an advertisement in the year 2017 for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Panchayat). Petitioner has also applied for the post of Lecturer Panchayat (Subject Physics). After completion of the proceedings, Zila Panchayat Raigarh issued list of eligible and ineligible candidates in which name of the petitioner is shown in Serial No. 13 as eligible candidate. Petitioner thereafter participated in the written examination and had obtained total 13.3636 marks and secured 14th rank and 8th rank in its own category. Respondents thereafter had called for the objection from the candidate and thereafter published the merit list in which name of the petitioner has been shown in serial no. 14. As on date 13 post are to be filled up, however, one candidate namely Archana Singh did not join the service, even though the appointment letter has been issued to her. Thus, one seat became vacant and petitioner being the eligible candidate ought to have been given the appointment. He submits that the Zila Panchayat Raigarh has recently rejected the representation submitted by one of the candidate Darshan Singh who had submitted representation for his appointment on the ground that Mukesh Kumar Chauhan and Archana Singh have not joined their post after issuance of the appointment order. Petitioner has already submitted representation and thereafter filed writ petition bearing WPS No. 5127 of 2018 which was disposed of permitting the 3 / 4 petitioner to submit representation to be considered by the respondent authorities therein. Petitioner thereafter had submitted representation, however, it was not considered and thereafter, petitioner has again filed a writ petition before this Court in WPS No. 6861 of 2018 which was also disposed directing the respondents therein to grant appointment to the petitioner in the event of lifting of the ban at later stage. The ban has been lifted on 05.11.2024 and thereafter the representation was made on 01.04.2026 and this writ petition is filed. 3. Counsel for the State opposes the submission and submits that there is no vacancy available for the OBC post. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. From the documents available on record, it appears that petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing WPS No. 6861 of 2018. The relief as prayed for was not granted to the petitioner observing thus; “ 4. The other development which the State counsel pinpointed at this juncture is that subsequently the schools run by the Panchayat Department have all got merged with the Education Department of the State Government and therefore the requirement of fresh Teachers or for appointment to be given from the pending waiting list, if any, also would be a case, which needs to be considered by the Education Department and on this ground also the petitioner as of now as a matter of right cannot claim any direction for grant of appointment. 5. ---------- 6. ---------- 7. Under the circumstances, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner calling for an interference with the impugned order. The reluctance of this Court in entertaining the writ petition would not come in the way of the Department, if they so want to grant appointment to the petitioner in the event of lifting of the ban at a later stage.” 4 / 4 6. Coordinate bench of this Court has taken note of the subsequent development after issuance of the advertisement of absorption of the schools by the education department and have observed that if the appointment is to be made from the wait list if any also would be a case whicih needs to be considered by the education department and on this ground also, the petitioner as of now as a matter of right cannot claim any direction for grant of appointment and thereafter has held that petitioner could not able to make out the strong case, for interference with the impugned order. This order is not put to challenge by the petitioner any further and therefore, it has attained finality. In the aforementioned facts of the case, this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot take a different view which is already been taken by the coordinate bench of this Court in the similar set of facts seeking similar relief. Hence the writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Saurabh JUDGE