1 2026:CGHC:7678 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3154 of 2023 1 - Babita Mahakhud W/o Atul Das Aged About 43 Years Posted As Teacher (L.B.) Govt. Middle School Karchuva Block Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Po And Ps Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction 1st Floor Block-3, Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Joint Director, Education Division Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For State :- Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 11.02.2026 1. The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 21.04.2023 issued by the Joint Director, Education Division, Durg, whereby the services of the petitioner have been dismissed on the ground that the caste certificate of the petitioner was not duly issued by the competent authority of the State of Chhattisgarh. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/ quash the order Dated 21.04.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Joint Director, Education Division Durg. 10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to consider the candidature of the petitioner on the post of Teacher (LB) and to grant all the other consequential benefits. 10.3 grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/ reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was born and brought up at Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in the State of Odisha and belongs to 3 “Gouda” caste, which falls under the Other Backward Class (OBC) category in the State of Odisha, and a valid caste certificate to that effect was issued by the Tahsildar, Kalahandi. Thereafter, the petitioner got married to Mr. Atul Das and settled in the State of Chhattisgarh, pursuant to which a domicile certificate was duly issued in her favour by the Tahsildar, Pithora, District Mahasamund. The petitioner possesses the requisite educational qualifications, having passed Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in English Literature in the year 2013 and Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) in the year 2017 from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, and also cleared the Chhattisgarh Teacher Eligibility Test (CG TET). An advertisement dated 09.03.2019 was issued by the Directorate of Public Education, Chhattisgarh for appointment to the post of Teacher (English), pursuant to which the petitioner, being fully eligible, applied and successfully qualified the examination held on 25.08.2019. The petitioner appeared for document verification on 20.01.2022, which she successfully cleared, and was thereafter appointed under the Unreserved (UR) category as Teacher (English), E-Cadre, vide appointment order dated 15.02.2022 and posted at Government Middle School, Karchuva, Block Bemetara, District Bemetara, where she joined and continuously discharged her duties for about 14 months. Subsequently, on the basis of a complaint, the respondent authorities re-verified the documents and issued a show-cause notice dated 24.01.2023 alleging that the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner was not valid for appointment under the State of Chhattisgarh, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 14.02.2023 stating that she 4 had been appointed under the Unreserved category after due verification of documents. However, without affording proper opportunity of hearing and ignoring the fact that the appointment had already been executed and acted upon, the respondent authority passed the impugned order dated 21.04.2023 dismissing the petitioner from service solely on the ground that her caste certificate was not issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, which action is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected for the post of Government Teacher (English), E-cadre, in Government Middle School, Karchuva, Block Bemetara, District Bemetara, under the unreserved category vide order dated 15.02.2022. Subsequently, her services were directed to be terminated vide order dated 21.04.2023 on the ground that the caste certificate produced by the petitioner was not issued by the State of Chhattisgarh and, therefore, was not valid for the purpose of appointment in the State. He submits that though the petitioner had applied under the OBC category, she was selected under the unreserved category. As such, even assuming the caste certificate was not acceptable in the State of Chhattisgarh, the same would not come in the way of her appointment, since her selection was not against a reserved post. Therefore, cancellation of her appointment solely on the ground that the caste certificate was issued by the State of Odisha is illegal and unsustainable in law. He places reliance in the judgment of Airport Authority of India & Ors. vs. Sham Krishna B & Ors. arising out of SLP(C) No. 5 10686/2020. 5. Learned State counsel submits that since the petitioner has produced an OBC certificate issued by the State of Odisha, she is not entitled to seek appointment in the State of Chhattisgarh on the basis of such certificate. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From perusal of the appointment order dated 15.02.2022, it is evident that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Teacher (English), E-cadre, under the unreserved category. The record does not reflect that the petitioner was granted appointment against any post reserved for OBC candidates or that her selection was founded upon the caste certificate issued by the State of Odisha. Once the petitioner was selected in the unreserved category on her own merit, the caste status of the petitioner became wholly irrelevant for the purpose of sustaining her appointment. 8. The sole basis of the impugned order is that the caste certificate produced by the petitioner was not issued by the competent authority of the State of Chhattisgarh. Even if the said certificate is assumed to be inapplicable for claiming reservation benefits within the State, the same could not have been made a ground to terminate the services of the petitioner, when admittedly she was not appointed against a reserved vacancy. The respondents have failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused to the selection process or any illegality in the appointment 6 under the unreserved category. Cancellation of an appointment, which has already been acted upon and pursuant to which the petitioner has discharged her duties for a considerable period, must be supported by a legally sustainable ground. In the present case, the ground assigned in the impugned order has no nexus with the category under which the petitioner was appointed. 9. The issue in respect of migration of reserved category candidates who has not availed any concession or relaxation has been considered in detailed by this Court in Rajasthan High Court & Anr. vs. Rajat Yadav & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 14112 of 2024 reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2931 decided on 19.12.2025, wherein this Court after taking into account all the judgments on the subject has held that a candidate belonging to reserve category who has scored higher marks than the cut off marks for the General Category candidates has to be treated as having qualified against an open unreserved vacant post. Relevant paras 62, 65, 66, 67 & 74 are held as under:- “62.Drawing inspiration from the guiding light provided by Indra Sawhney (supra) and Saurav Yadav (supra), we hold that the word 'open' connotes nothing but 'open', meaning thereby that vacant posts which are sought to be filled by earmarking it as 'open' do not fall in any category. One does find categories like 'open' 'unreserved' or 'general' being widely used in course of recruitment drives but they are meant to signify the open/unreserved vacant posts on which any suitable candidate can be appointed, 7 regardless of the caste/tribe/class/gender of such candidate. For all intents and purposes, the vacancies on posts which are notified/advertised as open or unreserved or general, as the terms suggest, are not reserved for any caste/tribe/class/gender and are, thus, open to all notwithstanding that a cross-section of society can also compete for appointment on vacant posts which are 'reserved' - vertical or horizontal - as mentioned in the notification/advertisement. 65. Scenario 1 is "Inter-State Reservation Migration" envisaging a portability of reservation benefits. Since we are not concerned with a scenario 1 case, we make no observation except noting two decisions of this Court. The first is Action Committee v. Union of India1 where it has been held by a Constitution Bench that a person belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in relation to his original State, of which he is a permanent or ordinary resident, cannot be deemed to be so in relation to any other State on his migration to that State for the purpose of employment, education, etc. The second is Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Sanjay Kumar Singh2 holding that if a person certified as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in one State migrates to another State, then he would not be entitled to the benefit available to ScheduledCaste/Scheduled Tribe in the State to 1 (1994) 5 SCC 244 2 (2003) 7 SCC 657 8 which he has migrated unless he belongs to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in that State. 66. Scenario 2, with which we are concerned, occurs when there is a "Merit Induced Shift". Although this shift is largely referred to as migration, we find in Saurav Yadav (supra) Hon'ble Ravindra Bhat, J. explaining the term as adjustment of a reserve category candidate in the unreserved category based on his/her merit. 67. Here, we do not see reason to agree with Mr. Gupta that any shift or adjustment, or even migration as he contends, as such is required where a candidate, who is also otherwise entitled to compete and be selected for a reserved vacant post, happens to outscore, outperform and outshine not only reserved candidates but also general candidates and figures at the top of the list of successful candidates prepared after examination a (for qualifying/preliminary screening/shortlisting) solely by dint of the marks secured by him/her in such examination (without availing any concession/relaxation) thereby entitling him/her to participate in the second tier of a further suitability test. Such a meritorious candidate, notwithstanding that he/she belongs to a reserved category, be it Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class, must of necessity (arising out of the concept of equality before law and equal protection of the laws in Article 14, and extended to Article 16 in matters of public employment) be treated as a 9 candidate who has competed for the 'unreserved' category and notthe 'reserved' category, thereby obviating the need for any 'migration' or, so to say, shift or adjustment. 74. Before we part, we find it necessary to enter a caveat. A situation could arise, if the aforesaid principles were applied, of a reserved category candidate based on his/her performance outshining General/Open candidates and figuring in the General merit list, but finding the options to be limited. He/she may, as a consequence of being counted as a General candidate, lose out on a preferred service or a preferred post because the same is reserved for a reserved category candidate. Should such an eventuality occur, the same is bound to breed dissatisfaction, disappointment and displeasure which are not in the interests of public service. After all, fairness matters even in public employment. Where adjustment against the unreserved category would result in a more meritorious reserved category candidate being displaced in favour of a less meritorious candidate within the same category for a preferred service or a preferred post within the reserved quota, the former must be permitted to be considered against the service/post in the_reserved quota. This would ensure across merit being preserved both categories and within them, and that reservation functions as a means of inclusion rather than an instrument of disadvantage. The approach adopted by us in holding so is consistent with the view expressed 10 by this Court, encapsulated in paragraph24.1 of Alok Kumar Pandiť (supra). We may also mention here that prior to the view expressed in Alok Kumar Pandit (supra), the High Court at Calcutta in a somewhat like situation took the same view in Mukul Biswas v. State of West Bengal3.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Airport Authority of India & Ors. vs. Sham Krishna B & Ors. arising out of SLP(C) No. 10686/2020 reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 69 has held as under:- “33.In the considered opinion of this Court, the controversy involved in the present case is no longer res integra. It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate belonging to reserve category who has scored marks higher than the cut off marks for the General Category is to be treated as having qualified against an open or unreserved vacant post. In the present case, no concession or relaxation was extended to the reserve category candidates who have been appointed on their own merit against the posts meant for the General Category candidates as they have scored more marks than the General Category candidates in the selection process. The facts of the case further makes it clear that all the vacancies notified for unreserved category i.e. 122 posts were filled up based upon the marks scored by candidates in the process of selection on their own merit and, therefore, the Appellant Authority were justified in migrating the candidates belonging to reserve category to the unreserved list on the 3 2010 SCC OnLine Cal 1983 11 basis of their own merit as they have scored higher marks than the General category candidates.” 11. Considering the aforesaid dictums, it appears that the action of the respondents, therefore, suffers from arbitrariness and is disproportionate, apart from being contrary to settled principles governing public employment. The impugned order amounts to penalizing the petitioner for a factor which was not material to her selection. Such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.04.2023 is quashed. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue her service pursuant to her appointment under the unreserved category with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, in accordance with law. 13. The writ petition is allowed. 14. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha