1 2026:CGHC:22345 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4718 of 2022 1 - Bhikham Ram Sori S/o Son Singh Sori Aged About 30 Years R/o House No.78 Bagdabra Bindranawagarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Department Of School Education Directorate Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Gariyaband Gariyaband (C.G.) 4 - The District Education Officer Gariyaband District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Kishanlal Sahu, Advocate. For State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12.05.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be NIRMALA RAO 2 pleased to call for the records pertaining to recruitment of teacher related to advertisement dated 09/03/2019 from the respondents for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. 10.2. That, the Hon' ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order of cancellation/ termination dated 19.5.2022 and declared the petitioner as eligible candidate under PVTG and gariyaband is declared as under schedule V of Constitution. 10.3. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Teacher pursuant to advertisement issued on 09.03.2019. He would further submit that the petitioner being resident of Gariyaband submitted his application form for the post of Assistant Teacher. He would contend that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he did not have B.Ed. and T.E.T. certificate. He would further contend that the State of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department issued a Notification dated 10.01.2013 whereby the requirement of B.Ed and T.ET. certificate was relaxed by the Governor exercising power of Schedule V of the Constitution of India for the candidates residing in scheduled area. He would further contend that admittedly the petitioner is resident of scheduled area, therefore, condition imposed in the advertisement to submit B.Ed. and T.E.T. certificate was illegal and contrary to the provisions of Schedule V of the Constitution of India. He would pray to quash the termination order dated 19.05.2022 issued by the District Education Department of District Gariyaband (C.G.) pertaining to the petitioners whereby the appointment order was rejected. 3 3. On the other hand, Learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose submissions. He would submit that the appointment of the petitioner was rejected as he did not have requisite qualification of B.Ed and T.E.T. He would further submit that the decision was taken by the respondent authorities strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules and conditions prescribed in the advertisement. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. According to the advertisement, qualification of B.Ed and T.E.T. was mandatory requirement for the posts of Teacher and Assistant Teacher but at the same time, the respondent authorities ignored the Notification issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department dated 10.01.2013, whereby, the requirement of D.ED/B.ED/T.E.T. was relaxed by the Governor in exercise of power conferred under Schedule V of the Constitution of India. 6. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, particularly, the Notification issued by the State Government dated 10.01.2013, the termination order dated 19.5.2022 (Annexure P/7) pertaining to the petitioner is hereby quashed and the order of appointment dated 21.3.2022 (Annexure-P/6) is restored. The respondent authority is directed to grant all the consequential benefits to the petitioner. 7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi