1 2026:CGHC:5323 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2121 of 2023 Sindhulata Baxla D/o Barthlomis Baxla, Aged About 30 Years R/o Gram - Ambadand, Patwari Halka No. 23, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 – Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Block - C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Block - C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer Officer, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Faisal Akhtar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30/01/2026 SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 28.5.2022 passed by the District Education Officer, District Raipur (CG) whereby, the petitioner was rejected for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher “Science”. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs : 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set- aside the impugned order dated 28.05.2022. (P/1) 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue order, Direction, or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to declare eligible petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science). 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, orders, writ or direction that may be deemed appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case be also be passed, And for this act of kindness the petitioner as is duty bound shall ever pray. 3. Necessary facts of the case are that by the impugned order, the District Education Officer, Raipur rejected the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher ‘Science”. The rejection was made on two grounds : (i) the petitioner scored less than 50% marks in XII standard and (ii) the Graduation Certificate was obtained after the prescribed cut off date. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner challenges the action of the respondents, wherein a 5% relaxation for SC/ST/OBC candidates was not applied during the appointment process for the post of Assistant Teacher (pursuant to the advertisement dated 9.3.2019). He submits that a similar issue arising from the same advertisement was considered by this Court in WA No.501/2022 and by order dated 10.2.2023, it 3 was held that the SC/ST/OBC candidates are entitled to 5% relaxation in their academic qualifications and such of the writ petitioners therein who consequently would fulfill the minimum qualification shall be entitled to be appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 9.3.2019. Against the said order, the State has preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.1278/2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the order dated 10.2.2023 passed in WA No.501/2022 has attained finality and squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon application of 5 % relaxation, the petitioner fulfills all eligibility criteria and is, therefore, entitled to be appointed to the subject post. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit although the case of the petitioner is covered by the order dated 10.2.2023 passed in Writ Appeal No. 501 / 2022, the present petition has been preferred belatedly. He further submits that the validity of the direct recruitment process pertaining to the year 2019 expired on 31.03.2023. He submits that the relief of consideration has been granted only to those candidates who approached this Court in a timely manner and obtained interim relief during the currency of the recruitment process. The petitioner, however, preferred the instant petition one month after this Court passed the order dated 10.2.2023 in WA No.501/2022. He further submits that in view of the fact that the recruitment period expired on 31.3.2023, the petitioner is not entitled to recruitment at this stage on the basis of the order passed in Writ Appeal. He also submits that the order dated 10.2.2023 passed in WA No.501/2022 should be treated as an order in personam rather than an order in rem. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim relief at par with those who approached this Court timely and obtained interim protection. 6. Replying to the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition was filed on 25.3.2023. Consequently, the respondents cannot contend that the currency of the advertisement has since expired, as the 4 petition was instituted during the subsistence of the recruitment process. He submits that the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to be considered for appointment by applying the 5% relaxation in academic qualification in view of the order dated 10.2.2023 passed in WA No.501/2022. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully. 8. Evidently, the order dated 10.2.2023 passed by this Court in WA No.501/2022 has attained finality as Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.1278/2024 preferred against the said order was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner herein is similarly situated to the parties in the aforementioned case (appeal) . In view of the of above, I am of the considered opinion that a prima facie case is made out in favour of the petitioner. 9. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the respondent/State is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner by applying the 5% relaxation in educational qualifications, the denial of which was the primary ground for rejection of the petitioner’s candidature. Furthermore, the respondent authorities shall also pass an appropriate order regarding the petitioner’s appointment, pursuant to the advertisement dated 9.3.2019, in accordance with law. 10.The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay 5